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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 2/27/26. Claims 1, 15, and 24 have been amended. Claims 3, 6, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, and 21-23 are canceled. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, and 25 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/27/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegarty et al. (US 2019/0043605 A1), in view of Avni et al. (US 2014/0281946 A1), in view of Pickover et al. (US 2019/0065685 A1), in view of Myers (US 2003/0083903 A1), in view of Minturn (US 2016/0365006 A1), and further in view of Rasmussen (US 2011/0298806 A1).
(A) Referring to claim 1, Hegarty discloses A method comprising:
receiving, by a server, response data representing responses to a plurality of questions of a medical questionnaire from a patient via a patient device (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [31], [140], and [142] of Hegarty, Data enters the RDnote environment through patent/clinician interaction. A healthcare worker may administer a questionnaire to patients to obtain data on the patient's activities at home or at a healthcare facility. The questions asked of the patient may be determined based on analysis of existing patient EHR data including biometric, socioeconomic, environmental and medical (i.e., clinical risk factors) information. Also see para. [60] which discloses a malnutrition questionnaire. Also see para. [22], Patient data entered into an RDnote interface is deidentified and stored in an RDnote database.);
generating, by the server, a medical note interface that includes the received response data (para. 19-21, 28, 33, 38, & 41 of Hegarty; FIG. 1A shows an RDnote application running on a mobile device. The application provides an interface for collecting patient data. For example, the screen 100 of FIG. 1A shows patient data 110 including height 112, weight 114, birthdate 116 and gender 118. Note that the screen displays this patient data in discrete sections, e.g. height—5′11″. RDnote software uses its algorithms and business logic under an embodiment to generate analysis based on the patient's responses);
storing, by the server, the medical note interface in a medical note interface database (see [20], [22],[143] of Hegarty; patient data entered into the RDnote interface is stored in an RDnote database. RDnote interfaces such as shown in Fig. 3-Fig. 8 must also be stored in order for the application to run and show the data);
communicating, by the server, the medical note interface to a user device configured to display the medical note interface to the user (see Fig. 6 and [53],[77] of Hegarty; presenting the malnutrition progress note including populating malnutrition progress note fields using data of the malnutrition data. The method includes 1450 receiving at least one of an indication of review and an indication of approval of the malnutrition progress note from the at least one authorized party.);
detecting, by the server, an approval indication that the user has reviewed the medical note interface and approved the content of the medical note interface, wherein the approval indication is an interaction between the user device and an input device of the server that receives an input from the user device (see [77] and Fig. 14 of Hegarty, an indication of review is received. Also see Fig. 3-Fig. 8, the RDnote interface has different icons and tabs which the user can click on. This is an interaction between user device and server. As mentioned in the Specification paragraph 8, exemplary indications include selection of an icon, selection of an option provided by a drop-down menu, and/or entry of text into a text box);
Hegarty does not expressly disclose receiving, by the server, an indication of medical decision making performed by a user during an encounter between the patient and the user; determining, by the server, a level of care provided by the user to the patient during the encounter, responsively to the indication of medical decision making; adding, by the server, the level of care to the medical note interface; communicating the level of care to a user device; digitally locking, by the server, the medical note interface upon the detection of the approval indication, the digital locking preventing electronic 3modification of the medical note interface and including packaging the medical note interface for storage on a blockchain; uploading, by the server, the packaged and digitally locked medical note interface to the blockchain; determining, by the server, a plurality of physiological systems to which the received response data pertains to; preparing, by the server, a review of systems (ROS) statement for the plurality of physiological systems based on the received response data, wherein the ROS statement is a clinical review of systems statement organized by anatomical physiological systems including at least two of cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, neurological, and dermatologic systems, and comprises a plurality of wellness scores corresponding to each of the plurality of physiological systems; generating, by the server, a medical note interface that includes the prepared ROS statement.
Avni discloses: digitally locking, by the server, the document upon the detection of the approval indication, the digital locking preventing electronic modification of document (see [39] of Avni, alteration of document is prevented after the system received the digital signature with digital certificate. Also see [73], digital certification is applied to the document to prevent modification to the document)
Pickover discloses packaging the medical note interface for storage on a blockchain; and uploading, by the server, the packaged and digitally locked medical note interface to the blockchain (para. 32, 51-53, 95, and Figures 5 & 6 of Pickover; a blockchain system to securely, record, track and maintain a record of mouth/tooth events.).
Myers discloses receiving, by the server, an indication of medical decision making performed by a user during an encounter between the patient and the user (para. 68, 69, 58, 100, 105, and 106 of Myers; When proceeding with the visit, the physician will typically want to validate or approve the type of service being performed. Once the type of care is established, the physician will perform (or as appropriate verify or review) the history, physical examination, and other components of the management recommendations. In a typical practice, the physician will likely dictate information required by HCFA or the payor; the required elements may be optionally presented as bullets or other display format based on the E&M group, as an aid to the physician 308. She or he will then select the diagnosis code (e.g., ICD code 312) which is most appropriate for the information obtained.); determining, by the server, a level of care provided by the user to the patient during the encounter, responsively to the indication of medical decision making (para. 100-106, 96, 130, and 213 of Myers; Having been presented, step 224, with the types and levels of care that can be provided, the physician will then select, step 226, the first service identifier--in this case an appropriate care type and level. Alternatively, this information may already have been inputted for the physician. However, the physician is preferably provided with a review menu to confirm the type and level of care or, alternately, change the information to reflect the types and levels of care actually delivered. An example of a presentation screen in which the physician is provided with the option to select different types and levels of care is illustrated and discussed later in connection with FIG. 3F.); adding, by the server, the level of care to the medical note interface and communicating the level of care to a user device (Figs. 2B, 4 & 8, para. 31, 130, 132 and 67 of Myers; Such recordation of time permits the service provider to provide an accurate account of the time required to perform the services and such time may be used by the service provider to support the costs of the services or, in the case of medical services, to justify a particular level of cognitive care rendered to the patient during the patient's visit to the health care provider. In the health care field, such recordation of time may be further used to meet the service provider's federal requirement for reporting the amount of time that the service provider spent servicing group versus non-group patients. The attending physician can rapidly access a remote server, receive browsable menus, lists or other displays of service-related identifiers, such as cognitive CPT codes, non-cognitive CPT codes, ICD-9 codes and diagnostic indications codes, make correct identifier selections, and instruct the remote server to automatically generate and submit the claim form, such as the so-called "1500" form presently in widespread use, electronically to the patient's insurer or payor. Once entered, some or all of the same identifier entries used for the standard "1500" or other claim form are stored and used to populate corresponding fields of a templated medical procedure report which can be submitted along with the billing report to the health care provider, referring physician or others, and stored for later access by the health care provider, insurer or others, all via a paperless, seamless system requiring almost no human intervention beyond data entry.).
Minturn discloses determining, by the server, a plurality of physiological systems to which the received response data pertains to (para. 346, 252, 258, & 25 of Minturn; Stress may affect many important lifestyle well-being and wellness factors, physiological and laboratory evaluated categories and their resultant scores, such as: stress tested temperatures, mental and emotional well-being and wellness, blood pressures, resting/exercise/recovery heart pulse rates, BMI, digestion and eating habits, commitment to well-being and wellness, endocrine well-being and wellness, hormone balances, immuno-vitality, liver and adrenal functions, and especially one's blood lipids. It can also affect and/or change some of the internal numbers, including: major blood lipids, immunocompetancy of white blood cells, etc.); preparing, by the server, a review of systems (ROS) statement for the plurality of physiological systems based on the received response data, wherein the ROS statement comprises a plurality of wellness scores corresponding to each of the plurality of physiological systems and generating, by the server, a medical note interface that includes the prepared ROS statement (see Fig. 6 & para. 13 and 224 of Minturn; FIG. 6 is a new and improved example of a portion of an individualized Quantifiable Well-Being and Scientific Optimal Wellness Summary Chart with simple, appropriately ranked personalized summaries and evaluations in the quantified categories and rankings according to the unique, updated and improved comprehensive 10-Point Quantifiable Well-Being and Scientific Wellness Scales in a simple to understand graphically illustrated chart.).
Rasmussen discloses wherein the ROS statement is a clinical review of systems statement organized by anatomical physiological systems including at least two of cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, neurological, and dermatologic systems (Figures 4-6 and para. 54 and 95 of Rasmussen; The graphical representation of FIG. 4 provides a general review of systems, and may provide a user (such as a medical professional or a layperson) with a general overview of a patient's past or present medical status. In the illustration of FIG. 4, the graphical representation has been provided with a number of categories 50, each category 50 having a graphical score 52 associated therewith. The categories 50 may include any desired category selections, and may be varied to suit a particular purpose, such as a particular diagnostic design, a particular type of medical practice, etc. The categories 50 of FIG. 4 may be considered to be a general review of systems, and therefore include the following category selections: 1) Allergic/Immunological/Lymphatic/Endocrine, 2) Neurologic/Psychiatric, 3) Musculoskeletal, 4) Genitourinary, 5) Gastrointestinal, 6) Respiratory, 7) Cardiovascular, 8) Head/Eyes/Ears/Nose/Mouth/Throat, 9) Skin/Breast, and 10) General/Constitutional. While ten specific category selections are represented among categories 50, any number or type of selections may be included.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Avni, Pickover, Myers, Minturn, and Rasmussen within Hegarty. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve electronic document authentication and validation (para. 9-11 of Avni), to securely track and maintain records (para. 6 of Pickover), to meet federal requirements (para. 130 of Myers), to educate individuals on what choices will create the highest scores of well-being (abstract of Minturn), and to provide a user (such as a medical professional or a layperson) with a general overview of a patient's past or present medical status (para. 54 of Rasmussen).
(B) Regarding claim 7, Hegarty, Avni, Pickover, and Myers do not expressly disclose further comprising: determining, by the server, the plurality of wellness scores, wherein the plurality of wellness scores is determined based on one or more scoring procedures corresponding to a type of the medical questionnaire.
Minturn discloses determining, by the server, the plurality of wellness scores, wherein the plurality of wellness scores is determined based on one or more scoring procedures corresponding to a type of the medical questionnaire (para. 19, 29, 346, and 221-224 of Minturn).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned feature of Minturn within Hegarty, Avni, Pickover, and Myers. The motivation for doing so would have been to assist individuals in making optimally healthy informed decisions in all the important areas (para. 265 of Minturn).
(C) Regarding claim 8, Hegarty discloses:
receiving, by the server, narrative comments from the user regarding the patient (see [53] and Fig. 6 of Hegarty, the clinician may provide free form comments in column 630); and
adding, by the server, the received comments to the medical note interface (see [53] and Fig. 6 of Hegarty, the clinician may provide free form comments in column 630).
(D) Regarding claim 11, Hegarty, Avni, and Pickover do not disclose wherein determining the level of care of the patient is further responsive to rules from a database, wherein the rules further relate to at least one of the patient's medical history and whether the patient is a new or established patient.
Myers discloses wherein determining the level of care of the patient is further responsive to rules from a database, wherein the rules further relate to at least one of the patient's medical history and whether the patient is a new or established patient (para. 65-69 & 108 of Myers).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned feature of Myers within Hegarty, Avni, and Pickover. The motivation for doing so would have been to assist the physician in deciding the appropriate level of care (para. 67 of Myers).
(E) Regarding claim 14, Hegarty discloses wherein the medical questionnaire is an outcome measurement device (Fig. 2 of Hegarty).
(F) Regarding claim 15, Hegarty discloses A method comprising:
receiving, by a server, response data representing a set of responses to a plurality of questions included in a medical questionnaire from a patient device (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [31], [140], and [142] of Hegarty, Data enters the RDnote environment through patent/clinician interaction. A healthcare worker may administer a questionnaire to patients to obtain data on the patient's activities at home or at a healthcare facility. The questions asked of the patient may be determined based on analysis of existing patient EHR data including biometric, socioeconomic, environmental and medical (i.e., clinical risk factors) information. Also see para. [60] which discloses a malnutrition questionnaire. Also see para. [22], Patient data entered into an RDnote interface is deidentified and stored in an RDnote database.),
determining, by the server, a plurality of wellness scores for a patient based on the set of received responses (paragraphs 46, 50, 110, 111, and 60 of Hegarty; At step 1220 RDnote pulls MST question responses, MST score, and dosing weight. At step 1230 RDnote evaluates any clinician note regarding nutrition status of patient. If MST score is greater than 2 and/or an alternative threshold negative nutrition status is indicated by the note, then nutrition is added to a problem list in an EMR/EHR as malnutrition mild, moderate, or severe. Risk score relates the risk of a patient for increased complications if nutritional status if not addressed. Numerical Risk Scores range from 1-5 and Percentage 0-100%.);
generating, by the server, a medical note interface that includes the plurality of wellness scores for the patient (para. 46, 60, & 77 of Hegarty; FIGS. 3-8 shows malnutrition clinical decision support interfaces. FIG. 3 comprises an interface for providing malnutrition questions to clinicians, i.e. a malnutrition screen tool (MST). As part of the admission process, the RDnote malnutrition questionnaire (as seen in FIG. 3) is completed. If the MST score is greater than two, then intake workflow consults an RD who then provides RD/nutrition notes pertaining to the nutrition status of the patient. At step 1220 RDnote pulls MST question responses, MST score, and dosing weight. At step 1230 RDnote evaluates any clinician note regarding nutrition status of patient. If MST score is greater than 2 and/or an alternative threshold negative nutrition status is indicated by the note, then nutrition is added to a problem list in an EMR/EHR as malnutrition mild, moderate, or severe.);
storing, by the server, the medical note interface in a medical note interface database (see [20], [22],[143] of Hegarty; patient data entered into the RDnote interface is stored in an RDnote database. RDnote interfaces such as shown in Fig. 3-Fig. 8 must also be stored in order for the application to run and show the data);
communicating, by the server, the medical note interface including the plurality of wellness scores to a user device configured to display the medical note interface to the user (see Fig. 6 and paragraphs [53],[77], [110], [111] of Hegarty; presenting the malnutrition progress note including populating malnutrition progress note fields using data of the malnutrition data. The method includes 1450 receiving at least one of an indication of review and an indication of approval of the malnutrition progress note from the at least one authorized party.);
detecting, by the server, an approval indication that the user has reviewed the medical note interface and approved the content of the medical note interface, wherein the approval indication is an interaction between the user device and an input device of the server that receives an input from the user device (see [77] and Fig. 14 of Hegarty, an indication of review is received. Also see Fig. 3-Fig. 8, the RDnote interface has different icons and tabs which the user can click on. This is an interaction between user device and server. As mentioned in the Specification paragraph 8, exemplary indications include selection of an icon, selection of an option provided by a drop-down menu, and/or entry of text into a text box);
Hegarty does not expressly disclose generating a medical note interface that includes the amount of time the user spent with the patient; digitally locking, by the server, the medical note interface upon the detection of the approval indication, the digital locking preventing electronic 3modification of the medical note interface and including packaging the medical note interface for storage on a blockchain; uploading, by the server, the packaged and digitally locked medical note interface to the blockchain; receiving, by the server, an indication of medical decision making performed by the user during the encounter between the patient and the user; determining, by the server, a level of care provided by the user to the patient during the encounter responsively to the indication of medical decision making and rules from a database, wherein the rules relate to at least one of examination of the patient, patient counselling, the user's time spent related to the encounter, and coordination of health care for the patient; adding, by the server, the level of care to the medical note interface; communicating the level of care to a user device; determining, by the server, a plurality of physiological systems to which the received response data pertains to; determining, by the server, a plurality of wellness scores corresponding to each of the plurality of the physiological systems for a patient based on the set of received responses; receiving, by the server, an amount of time a user spent with the patient during an encounter; wherein the plurality of physiological systems are anatomical physiological systems including at least two of cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, neurological, and dermatologic systems; preparing, by the server, a clinical review of systems (ROS) statement organized by the anatomical physiological systems; wherein the plurality of wellness scores are included in the clinical review of systems statement.
Avni discloses: digitally locking, by the server, the document upon the detection of the approval indication, the digital locking preventing electronic modification of document (see [39] of Avni, alteration of document is prevented after the system received the digital signature with digital certificate. Also see [73], digital certification is applied to the document to prevent modification to the document).
Pickover discloses packaging the medical note interface for storage on a blockchain; and uploading, by the server, the packaged and digitally locked medical note interface to the blockchain (para. 32, 51-53, 95, and Figures 5 & 6 of Pickover; a blockchain system to securely, record, track and maintain a record of mouth/tooth events.).
Myers discloses receiving, by the server, an amount of time a user spent with the patient during an encounter and generating a medical note interface that includes the amount of time the user spent with the patient (para. 93, 96, 97, 130, and 142 of Myers; the local processing device 101, 102 preferably includes a timer that can be started at the option of the service provider to record 407 the duration of time that the service provider provides the services to the customer. Such recordation of time permits the service provider to provide an accurate account of the time required to perform the services and such time may be used by the service provider to support the costs of the services or, in the case of medical services, to justify a particular level of cognitive care rendered to the patient during the patient's visit to the health care provider. In the health care field, such recordation of time may be further used to meet the service provider's federal requirement for reporting the amount of time that the service provider spent servicing group versus non-group patients.); receiving, by the server, an indication of medical decision making performed by the user during the encounter between the patient and the user (para. 68, 69, 58, 100, 105, and 106 of Myers; When proceeding with the visit, the physician will typically want to validate or approve the type of service being performed. Once the type of care is established, the physician will perform (or as appropriate verify or review) the history, physical examination, and other components of the management recommendations. In a typical practice, the physician will likely dictate information required by HCFA or the payor; the required elements may be optionally presented as bullets or other display format based on the E&M group, as an aid to the physician 308. She or he will then select the diagnosis code (e.g., ICD code 312) which is most appropriate for the information obtained.); determining, by the server, a level of care provided by the user to the patient during the encounter responsively to the indication of medical decision making (para. 100-106, 96, 130, and 213 of Myers; Having been presented, step 224, with the types and levels of care that can be provided, the physician will then select, step 226, the first service identifier--in this case an appropriate care type and level. Alternatively, this information may already have been inputted for the physician. However, the physician is preferably provided with a review menu to confirm the type and level of care or, alternately, change the information to reflect the types and levels of care actually delivered. An example of a presentation screen in which the physician is provided with the option to select different types and levels of care is illustrated and discussed later in connection with FIG. 3F.) and rules from a database, wherein the rules relate to at least one of examination of the patient, patient counselling, the user's time spent related to the encounter, and coordination of health care for the patient (para. 65-69, 106, & 108 of Myers; While the physician will make the final decision regarding the group and level of care appropriate, scheduling will typically have predetermined, e.g., whether the patient is visiting as a new patient, for an office consultation, or a return office visit; and often has decided whether it will be a high level visit, consultation, or evaluation, or a low level service. This is typically necessitated by the specific times allotted for each patient (i.e., you cannot schedule thirty patients for new evaluations where each one takes approximately an hour). This practice reality can be captured by appropriate system rules. Having selected the levels of care, the physician then proceeds to determine the history types that are involved in this particular encounter, step 228. In this embodiment illustrated in connection with FIGS. 3G-3J, this can take the form of a documentation checklist that has been determined (e.g., by appropriate rule or preselection) appropriate for the levels of care that are being provided. In other words, for a less complex new evaluation that is rated as having a level care of 1, the physician may only be required to provide a certain minimum level of documentation supporting the indicated level of care.); adding, by the server, the level of care to the medical note interface and communicating the level of care to a user device (Figs. 2B, 4 & 8, para. 31, 130, 132 and 67 of Myers; Such recordation of time permits the service provider to provide an accurate account of the time required to perform the services and such time may be used by the service provider to support the costs of the services or, in the case of medical services, to justify a particular level of cognitive care rendered to the patient during the patient's visit to the health care provider. In the health care field, such recordation of time may be further used to meet the service provider's federal requirement for reporting the amount of time that the service provider spent servicing group versus non-group patients. The attending physician can rapidly access a remote server, receive browsable menus, lists or other displays of service-related identifiers, such as cognitive CPT codes, non-cognitive CPT codes, ICD-9 codes and diagnostic indications codes, make correct identifier selections, and instruct the remote server to automatically generate and submit the claim form, such as the so-called "1500" form presently in widespread use, electronically to the patient's insurer or payor. Once entered, some or all of the same identifier entries used for the standard "1500" or other claim form are stored and used to populate corresponding fields of a templated medical procedure report which can be submitted along with the billing report to the health care provider, referring physician or others, and stored for later access by the health care provider, insurer or others, all via a paperless, seamless system requiring almost no human intervention beyond data entry.).
Minturn discloses determining, by the server, a plurality of physiological systems to which the received response data pertains to and determining, by the server, a plurality of wellness scores corresponding to each of the plurality of the physiological systems for a patient based on the set of received responses (Fig. 6 and para. 221-224, 252, 258, 346, 394, 13, & 25 of Minturn; FIG. 6 is a new and improved example of a portion of an individualized Quantifiable Well-Being and Scientific Optimal Wellness Summary Chart with simple, appropriately ranked personalized summaries and evaluations in the quantified categories and rankings according to the unique, updated and improved comprehensive 10-Point Quantifiable Well-Being and Scientific Wellness Scales in a simple to understand graphically illustrated chart.).
Rasmussen discloses wherein the plurality of physiological systems are anatomical physiological systems including at least two of cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, neurological, and dermatologic systems and preparing, by the server, a clinical review of systems (ROS) statement organized by the anatomical physiological systems (Figures 3-6 and para. 48-51, 54, and 95 of Rasmussen; The graphical representation of FIG. 4 provides a general review of systems, and may provide a user (such as a medical professional or a layperson) with a general overview of a patient's past or present medical status. In the illustration of FIG. 4, the graphical representation has been provided with a number of categories 50, each category 50 having a graphical score 52 associated therewith. The categories 50 may include any desired category selections, and may be varied to suit a particular purpose, such as a particular diagnostic design, a particular type of medical practice, etc. The categories 50 of FIG. 4 may be considered to be a general review of systems, and therefore include the following category selections: 1) Allergic/Immunological/Lymphatic/Endocrine, 2) Neurologic/Psychiatric, 3) Musculoskeletal, 4) Genitourinary, 5) Gastrointestinal, 6) Respiratory, 7) Cardiovascular, 8) Head/Eyes/Ears/Nose/Mouth/Throat, 9) Skin/Breast, and 10) General/Constitutional. While ten specific category selections are represented among categories 50, any number or type of selections may be included.); wherein the plurality of wellness scores are included in the clinical review of systems statement (para. 54-60 and 85 of Rasmussen; the form comprises rating information based on the highest score, the lowest score, an average score, an average of several average scores, or any other information associated with one or more categories/subcategories (e.g., systems) of the patient's health. In such instances, the user can drill through forms of varying detail to review categories and subcategories of the patient's health down all the way to the most-detailed level. The graphical representation of FIG. 4 provides a general review of systems, and may provide a user (such as a medical professional or a layperson) with a general overview of a patient's past or present medical status. In the illustration of FIG. 4, the graphical representation has been provided with a number of categories 50, each category 50 having a graphical score 52 associated therewith.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Avni, Pickover, Myers, Minturn, and Rasmussen within Hegarty. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve electronic document authentication and validation (para. 9-11 of Avni), to securely track and maintain records (para. 6 of Pickover), to meet federal requirements (para. 130 of Myers), to educate individuals on what choices will create the highest scores of well-being (abstract of Minturn), and to provide a user (such as a medical professional or a layperson) with a general overview of a patient's past or present medical status (para. 54 of Rasmussen).
(G) Referring to claim 24, Hegarty, Avni, Pickover, and Myers do not disclose wherein the ROS statement further comprises a plurality of improvement scores, a plurality of narrative statements, a plurality of recommendations, and a plurality of severity evaluations.
Minturn discloses wherein the ROS statement further comprises a plurality of improvement scores, a plurality of narrative statements, a plurality of recommendations, and a plurality of severity evaluations (Figures 3A-6, para. 9, 10, 25, 394, 221-224, 253, and 261 of Minturn).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Minturn within Hegarty, Avni, Pickover, and Myers. The motivation for doing so would have been to educate individuals on what choices will create the highest scores of well-being (abstract of Minturn).
(H) Referring to claim 25, Hegarty, Avni, Pickover, and Myers do not expressly disclose wherein the responses correspond to numeric responses, and wherein the one or more scoring procedures comprise one or more of: taking an average of all the responses, taking a weighted average of the responses, and adjusting a range of the responses.
Minturn discloses wherein the responses correspond to numeric responses, and wherein the one or more scoring procedures comprise one or more of: taking an average of all the responses, taking a weighted average of the responses, and adjusting a range of the responses (para. 25, 252, 10, and 283 of Minturn).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Minturn within Hegarty, Avni, Pickover, and Myers. The motivation for doing so would have been to educate individuals on what choices will create the highest scores of well-being (abstract of Minturn).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegarty et al. (US 2019/0043605 A1) in view of Avni et al. (US 2014/0281946 A1) in view of Pickover et al. (US 2019/0065685 A1), in view of Myers (US 2003/0083903 A1), in view of Minturn (US 2016/0365006 A1), in view of Rasmussen (US 2011/0298806 A1), and further in view of Ginsburg et al. (US 2017/0116373 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hegarty, Avni, Pickover, Myers, Minturn, and Rasmussen do not explicitly disclose:
receiving, by the server, a chief complaint of the patient from at least one of the patient device and the user device; and adding, by the processor, the chief complaint to the medical note interface.
However, Ginsburg teaches that it was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of medical note generation to include: receiving, by the server, a chief complaint of the patient from at least one of the patient device and the user device (see [160] and Fig. 4A, a chief complaint is entered and recorded with button 430); and adding, by the server, the chief complaint to the medical note interface (see [160], chief complaint can be add or edited using button 430) in order to record medical notes more accurately and avoid errors (see [2] of Ginsburg).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical note generation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hegarty, Avni, Pickover, Myers, Minturn, and Rasmssen to include the aforementioned features taught by Ginsburg in order to record medical notes more accurately and avoid errors.
Regarding claim 10, Hegarty, Avni, Pickover, Myers, Minturn, and Rasmussen do not explicitly disclose:
facilitating, by the server, provision of the level of care to at least one of the user and a billing coordinator for the user.
However, Ginsburg teaches that it was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of medical note generation to include: facilitating, by the server, provision of the level of care to at least one of the user and a billing coordinator for the user (see [256], system can access clinical and insurance guidelines to help determine level of care. As shown in Fig. 15, tab 2542 shows the guidelines related to patient’s condition. For example, see [256], patient is allergic to certain chemical compound in an imaging test, thus Alert icon 2934 is highlighted to alert user (physician) that such imaging service should not be performed) in order to help physician with efficient and correct medical decisions (see [7] and [19] of Ginsburg).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical note generation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hegarty, Avni, Pickover, Myers, Minturn, and Rasmussen to include the aforementioned features taught by Ginsburg in order to help physician with efficient and correct medical decisions.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegarty et al. (US 2019/0043605 A1) in view of Avni et al. (US 2014/0281946 A1) in view of Pickover et al. (US 2019/0065685 A1), in view of Myers (US 2003/0083903 A1), in view of Minturn (US 2016/0365006 A1), in view of Rasmussen (US 2011/0298806 A1), and further in view of Prodanovich (US 2012/0197660 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Hegarty, Avni, Pickover, Myers, Minturn, and Rasmussen do not explicitly disclose:
associating, by the server, the medical note interface with a patient account associated with the patient, the patient’s account being separate from the patient’s EMR.
However, Prodanovich teaches that it was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of medical service improvement to include: associating, by the server, the medical note interface with a patient account associated with the patient, the patient’s account being separate from the patient’s EMR (see [156], Patient portal 130 is linked with patient account. Patient’s account is separate from patient’s EMR) in order to speed up the process and save time in the clinic (see [234] of Prodanovich).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical service improvement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hegarty, Avni, Pickover, Myers, Minturn, and Rasmussen to include the aforementioned features taught by Prodanovich in order to speed up the process and save time in the clinic.
Regarding claim 5, Hegarty, Avni, Pickover, Myers, Minturn, and Rasmussen do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the responses are received prior to the encounter with the user.
However, Prodanovich teaches that it was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of medical service improvement to include: the responses are received prior to the encounter with the user (see [234], Pre-Visit questionnaire) in order to speed up the process and save time in the clinic (see [234] of Prodanovich).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical service improvement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hegarty, Avni, Pickover, Myers, Minturn, and Rasmussen to include the aforementioned features taught by Prodanovich in order to speed up the process and save time in the clinic.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegarty et al. (US 2019/0043605 A1) in view of Avni et al. (US 2014/0281946 A1) in view of Pickover et al. (US 2019/0065685 A1), in view of Myers (US 2003/0083903 A1), in view of Minturn (US 2016/0365006 A1), in view of Rasmussen (US 2011/0298806 A1), and further in view of Ingram et al. (US 2018/0239874 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Hegarty, Avni, Pickover, Myers, Minturn, and Rasmussen do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the set of responses is a first set of responses and the determined plurality of wellness scores comprises a first wellness score, the method further comprising:
receiving, by the server, a second set of responses to the plurality of questions included in the medical questionnaire from at least one of the patient device and the user device;
determining, by the server, a second wellness score of the plurality of wellness scores for the patient responsively to the second set of received responses;
determining, by the server, an improvement score for the patient using the first and second wellness scores; and
adding, by the server, at least one of the second wellness score and the improvement score to the medical note interface.
However, Ingram teaches that it was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of wellness evaluation to include:
the set of responses is a first set of responses and the determined plurality of wellness scores comprises a first wellness score (see [14], system may collect individual’s health data by periodically presenting a series of questions (questionnaire or survey) which solicit the individual's perceptions of the individual's wellness state. Also see [16], system periodically updates individual’s wellness score. For example, the system may update wellness scores upon the detection of certain events, such as the individual's completion of a survey), the method further comprising:
receiving, by the server, a second set of responses to the plurality of questions included in the medical questionnaire from at least one of the patient device and the user device (see [14], system may collect individual’s health data by periodically presenting a series of questions (questionnaire or survey) which solicit the individual's perceptions of the individual's wellness state);
determining, by the server, a second wellness score of the plurality of wellness scores for the patient responsively to the second set of received responses (see [16], system periodically updates individual’s wellness score. For example, the system may update wellness scores upon the detection of certain events, such as the individual's completion of a survey);
determining, by the server, an improvement score for the patient using the first and second wellness scores (see [66], Fig. 8 shows a graph of an individual’s wellness score over time. The improvement or decline of the score is shown in the graph); and
adding, by the server, at least one of the second wellness score and the improvement score to the medical note interface (see [16] and Fig. 8, the updated wellness scores as well as the improvement or decline of the score over time is recorded in the system) in order to improve an individual’s wellness (see [1]-[2] of Ingram).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical note generation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hegarty, Avni, Pickover, Myers, Minturn, and Rasmussen to include the aforementioned features taught by Ingram in order to improve an individual’s wellness.
Regarding claim 20, Hegarty discloses:
receiving, by the server, narrative comments from the user regarding the patient (see [53] and Fig. 6, the clinician may provide free form comments in column 630); and
adding, by the server, the received narrative comments to the medical note interface (see [53] and Fig. 6, the clinician may provide free form comments in column 630).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegarty et al. (US 2019/0043605 A1) in view of Avni et al. (US 2014/0281946 A1) in view of Pickover et al. (US 2019/0065685 A1), in view of Myers (US 2003/0083903 A1), in view of Minturn (US 2016/0365006 A1), in view of Rasmussen (US 2011/0298806 A1), in view of Ingram et al. (US 2018/0239874 A1), and further in view of Ginsburg et al. (US 2017/0116373 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Hegarty, Avni, Pickover, Myers, Minturn, Rasmussen and Ingram do not explicitly disclose:
receiving, by the server, a chief complaint of the patient from at least one of the patient device and the user device; and
adding, by the server, the chief complaint to the medical note interface.
However, Ginsburg teaches that it was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of medical note generation to include: receiving, by the server, a chief complaint of the patient from at least one the patient device and the user device (see [160] and Fig. 4A, a chief complaint is entered and recorded with button 430); and adding, by the server, the chief complaint to the medical note interface (see [160], chief complaint can be add or edited using button 430) in order to record medical notes more accurately and avoid errors (see [2] of Ginsburg).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical note generation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hegarty, Avni, Pickover, Myers, Minturn, Rasmussen and Ingram to include the aforementioned features taught by Ginsburg in order to record medical notes more accurately and avoid errors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENA NAJARIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am-6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571)270-1813. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LENA NAJARIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687