DETAILED ACTION
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
This Final Office Action is in response to the Amendment and Remarks filed 02/23/2026. Claims 1, 10 and 16 are amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and considered herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without practical application and without significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites, wherein the abstract elements are not emboldened:
A method for dynamically evaluating health care risk, the method being implemented by a machine executing machine-readable instructions, the method comprising: standardizing a set of medical records of a user into a user healthcare record, the set of medical records comprising a first set of patient records from a first source, a second set of pharmacy records from a second source different from the first source, and a third set of lab records from a third source different from the first source and different from the second source; assigning a set of statuses to each of a set of fields in the user healthcare record, wherein a first status is associated with a first field in the user healthcare record and a second status is associated with a second field in the user healthcare record; determining whether a gap exists in the user healthcare record, the gap including a missing diagnosis; updating the first status based on the determined gap; determining, based on the determined gap, an action item to be performed within a predetermined time period by periodically updating the set of medical records of the user; determining whether the action item was performed within the predetermined time period; updating the first status based on the determination of whether the action item was performed; determining, based on the set of statuses, whether the user healthcare record is complete; responsive to determining the user healthcare record is complete, applying a set of analytical models to the user healthcare record to calculate a healthcare timeline for the user; and causing display of the healthcare timeline to the user.
Independent claims 10 and 16 recite substantially similar limitations. The claimed invention is broadly directed to the abstract idea of collecting information including medical records, analyzing the information, and determining different results including gaps in data based on the analyses using a computer system.
The limitations of “standardizing a set of medical records of a user into a user healthcare record, the set of medical records comprising a first set of patient records from a first source, a second set of pharmacy records from a second source different from the first source, and a third set of lab records from a third source different from the first source and different from the second source; assigning a set of statuses to each of a set of fields in the user healthcare record, wherein a first status is associated with a first field in the user healthcare record and a second status is associated with a second field in the user healthcare record; determining whether a gap exists in the user healthcare record, the gap including a missing diagnosis; updating the first status based on the determined gap; determining, based on the determined gap, an action item to be performed within a predetermined time period by periodically updating the set of medical records of the user; determining whether the action item was performed within the predetermined time period; updating the first status based on the determination of whether the action item was performed; determining, based on the set of statuses, whether the user healthcare record is complete; responsive to determining the user healthcare record is complete,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea that covers performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, but for the generic recitation of “the method being implemented by a machine executing machine-readable instructions,” (claim 1) “the system comprising a physical processor implementing machine readable instructions,” (claim 10) and “a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by a physical processor of a computing device” (claim 16), and “applying a set of analytical models to the user healthcare record to calculate a healthcare timeline for the user; and causing display of the healthcare timeline to the user,” analyzing patient records from multiple data sources and determining healthcare gap information for display to the patient based on the analyses, in the context of this claim, is an abstract idea that covers performance of the limitation as organizing human activity including following rules or instructions. The limitations fall within certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations allowing users to access various patient records data, analyze the data, and generate a relevant categorization and healthcare timeline based on the analyses. This is a method of managing interactions between people. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations are categorized as methods of organizing human activity, specifically associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including a patient and clinician. Therefore, the limitation falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor, non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, system, display and machine executing machine-readable instructions does not remove the claims from the method of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claims can also be classified as an abstract idea including mental processes that can be performed and analyzed manually and are utilizing computer technology as a tool to apply the judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a generic processor, non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, system and machine executing machine-readable instructions and displaying to the user. The devices in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/server/storage/display performing a generic computer function of receiving inputs, analyzing the inputs, and displaying or sending selected information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of a risk (statistical) evaluation through analyzing patient health records using machine-readable instructions for processors amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)); or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of updating statuses and a set of analytical models to the user healthcare record to calculate a healthcare timeline and to display that information). See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The limitations appear to monopolize the abstract idea of patient records analysis and general healthcare techniques between a physician and her patient. Furthermore, there is no clear improvement to the underlying computer technology in the claim. The claim is thus directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of being implemented by a generic processor, non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, system, display and machine executing machine-readable instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims with respect to patent eligible subject matter. The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101. Claims 2 and 11, 14 and 17-20 include computer models for receiving and comparing more data and which are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component and cannot provide an inventive concept. Even in combination, the computer models do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 3-4 and 12-13 discuss status information further limiting the abstract idea. Claim 5 updates data and determines a healthcare condition and limits the abstract idea. Claim 6 includes a computer model for source information and timelines, which is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component and cannot provide an inventive concept. Even in combination, the computer model does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 7-9 and 15 introduces data from a wearable computer device which is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component and cannot provide an inventive concept. Even in combination, the wearable computer device does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6, 10-11, 14, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 9,710,600 B1 to Dunleavy et al., hereinafter “Dunleavy,” in view of U.S. 2016/0210427 A1 to Mynhier et al., hereinafter “Mynhier,” in view of U.S. 2016/0357910 A1 to Ghouri et al., hereinafter “Ghouri” and further in view of U.S. 2008/0208631 A1 to Morita et al., hereinafter “Morita.”
Regarding claim 1, Dunleavy discloses A method for dynamically evaluating health care risk, the method being implemented by a machine executing machine-readable instructions, the method comprising: the set of medical records comprising a first set of patient records from a first source, a second set of pharmacy records from a second source different from the first source, and a third set of lab records from a third source different from the first source and different from the second source (See Dunleavy at least at Col. 1, ln. 34 – Col. 2, ln. 54 (medical records); Col. 5, ln. 45 – Col. 6, ln. 16 (pharmacy records); Col. 5, ln. 45 – Col. 6, ln. 16 (lab records); Col. 8, ln. 13-34; Claim 1); determining whether a gap exists in the user healthcare record (See id. at least at Abstract; Col. 1, ln. 34 – Col. 2, ln. 54 (healthcare gaps in myriad healthcare sets or records) the gap including a missing diagnosis (See id. at least at Col. 12, ln. 54-60 (“determining that at least one healthcare gap from the set of healthcare gaps has been addressed. For example, the healthcare provider system may determine that a required diagnostic test has been order, or a missing diagnosis.”)); updating the first status based on the determined gap (See id. at least at Col. 1, ln. 34 – Col. 2, ln. 54 (“[I]nitiating an update of the electronic health record of the patient in real-time based on the one or more of the set of healthcare gaps being addressed.”); determining, based on the determined gap, an action item to be performed by periodically updating the set of medical records of the user (See id. at least at Col. 5, ln. 45 – Col. 6, ln. 29; Col. 8, ln. 1-23 (“As the user of the healthcare provider system 102 selects individual entries within the healthcare gap list and interacts with the individual healthcare gap dialogs, the data analytics provider system 104 will provide to the healthcare provider system 102 a specific system action within the EHR provider system 132 (each a “system action direction”).”); Col. 9, ln.13-62 (“[T]he healthcare provider system 102 may facilitate the provision to the data analytics provider system 104, in real-time, of notification (the “EHR system action commitment notifications”) consisting of the EHR practice ID, EHR provider ID, and a patient identifier set, as to the system action direction that was successfully implemented and acknowledged by the EHR system 132.”); Col. 10, ln. 57 – Col. 11, ln. 30; Claim 1; Figs. 1-4); determining whether the action item was performed (See id.);
Dunleavy may not specifically describe but Myhnier teaches assigning a set of statuses to each of a set of fields in the user healthcare record, wherein a first status is associated with a first field in the user healthcare record and a second status is associated with a second field in the user healthcare record (See Mynhier at least at Abstract; Paras. [0018] (“Each stakeholder data source 201 can choose the specific fields and elements, or subsets of data, which they approve to share, and the system 100 can manage the approvals of identified data (e.g., through consent/data use agreement) and/or identifiable data.”), [0021], [0034], [0076], [0082]-[0086], [0089], [0114]-[0115], [0121]-[0129], [0263]-[0265]); and standardizing a set of medical records of a user into a user healthcare record (See id. at least at Paras. [0021], [0063] (data standardization), [0070]-[0073] (“At the time of loading the data into the common information model 312, one or more coding dictionaries can be used to map terms in the message into standard terms. For example, blood pressure can be mapped to hypertension.”), [0085]-[0086] (“The resulting cleansed, structured, standardized data can be stored in one or more databases defined by the common information model module 312, (see, e.g., block 413 and 415 of FIG. 3). For example, the common information model module 312 can standardize information in accordance with terminologically robust standards such as Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine—Clinical Terms.”), [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dunleavy to incorporate the teachings of Myhnier and provide healthcare gaps, statuses and timelines for healthcare records. Mynhier is directed to healthcare data interchange techniques. Incorporating the healthcare data interchange techniques of Mynhier with the healthcare gap management and performance as in Dunleavy would thereby increase the functionality and effectiveness of implementing the claimed system and method of aggregating healthcare data from multiple data centers.
The references may not specifically describe but Ghouri teaches an action item to be performed within a predetermined time period (See Ghouri at least at Abstract; Paras. [0035]-[0038] (“When implementing a gap in care detection system using medical insurance claims, an algorithm may be used to determine what time period elapsed before the gap in care detection system detects that there has been a gap in care. Such an algorithm may be implemented by establishing predetermined periods of time for each type of treatment protocol during which the gap in care detection system will not indicate a gap in care. [0044], [0048] (lack of follow-up as action item), [0052]; Claim 8 (“the patient's electronic medical record is automatically updated to reflect a gap in care for said patient when said alert is generated.”), [0048] (“Once the gap in care algorithm identifies a potential gap in care for a patient, the algorithm triggers an alert or early warning. This alert may trigger a further review process at the health insurance provider or alternatively at the health care provider associated with the claim and of the lack of follow-up that caused the gap in care detection algorithm to generate the alert. Once any review is completed, the gap in care early warning may be communicated to an individual or organization by an alert delivery subsystem 18 to follow up with the health care provider or patient.” Follow-up as an action item that is performed.), [0052]; Claim 8; Figs. 1-8); and determining whether the action item was performed within the predetermined time period (See id.); and updating the first status based on the determination of whether the action item was performed (See id. at least at Paras. [0044]-[0048], [0052]-[0057] (“In certain embodiments of the invention, a method of detecting gaps in care may be performed by calculating gap in care alert thresholds using selected HEDIS and STAR performance measure rules. An exemplary list of HEDIS and STAR rules is show in Appendix 1 included in this application. In addition to these rules, Appendix 1 also includes a discussion of how such rules may be used to calculate a failure date. In certain embodiments of the invention, this failure date may be used to indicate when a gap in care may occur and provide an alert in advance of this date.”), [0064]-[0069], [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dunleavy and Mynhier to incorporate the teachings of Ghouri and provide updating whether an action item is performed in a certain time period based on healthcare gaps. Ghouri is directed to a system for gap in care alerts. Incorporating the healthcare gap care alerts of Ghouri with the healthcare data interchange techniques of Mynhier and the healthcare gap management and performance as in Dunleavy would thereby increase the functionality and effectiveness of implementing the claimed system and method of aggregating healthcare data from multiple data centers.
The references may not specifically describe but Morita teaches determining, based on the set of statuses, whether the user healthcare record is complete (See Morita at least at Paras. [0029]-[0032]; Figs. 1, 3); responsive to determining the user healthcare record is complete, applying a set of analytical models to the user healthcare record to calculate a healthcare timeline for the user (See id.); and causing display of the healthcare timeline to the user (See id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dunleavy, Mynhier and Ghouri to incorporate the teachings of Morita and provide determining if a health record is complete and displays of data. Morita is directed to providing clinical documentation for a patient and timeline. Incorporating the patient timeline and healthcare record as in Morita with the healthcare gap care alerts of Ghouri, the healthcare data interchange techniques of Mynhier and the healthcare gap management and performance as in Dunleavy would thereby increase the functionality and effectiveness of implementing the claimed system and method of aggregating healthcare data from multiple data centers.
Regarding claim 2, Dunleavy as modified by Mynhier, Ghouri and Morita discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Ghouri further teaches wherein determining whether the gap exists in the user healthcare record further comprises: accessing a set of scenario models that comprises, for each healthcare scenario, a set of attributes that indicate a type of potential data gap (See Ghouri at least at Paras. [0003]-[0006] (scenarios), [0033]-[0041] (“[A] comparison 61 may then be conducted during which health care provider recommendations may be compared to a benchmark set of recommended treatment protocols for the type of illness, condition, or disease diagnosed. Such benchmark protocols may be acquired from a recognized source of such data or may be derived internally by a health insurance provider reviewing historical data for its insured patients over a lengthy period of time. Discrepancies between the results of these analyses may be reviewed […] When a triggering event occurs for a patient 70, the processor 12 may perform a comparison 71 based on then-current data, including that data specific to the patient, the patient's disease, ailment, or surgery, and the prescribed treatment protocol applied to the patient's care, in view of generally accepted treatment protocols.”); Figs. 1-8); comparing the user healthcare record to each of the set of scenarios; and determining whether the gap exists based on the comparison (See id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dunleavy, Mynhier and Morita to incorporate the teachings of Ghouri and provide further healthcare gap data analyses. Ghouri relates to a system for gaps in care alerts. Incorporating the healthcare gap care alerts of Ghouri with the patient timeline and healthcare record as in Morita, the healthcare data interchange techniques of Mynhier and the healthcare gap management and performance as in Dunleavy would thereby increase the functionality and effectiveness of implementing the claimed system and method of aggregating healthcare data from multiple data centers.
Regarding claim 6, Dunleavy as modified by Mynhier, Ghouri and Morita discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Mynhier further teaches wherein applying the set of analytical models further comprises: classifying the first source, second source, and third source into a set of categories; identifying a set of relationships between the set of medical records (See Mynhier at least at Paras. [0018], [0021], [0034], [0076], [0082]-[0086], [0089], [0114]-[0115], [0121]-[0129], [0263]-[0265]). While Morita further teaches generating the healthcare timeline for the user (See Morita at least at Paras. [0029]-[0032]; Figs. 1, 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dunleavy and Ghouri to incorporate the teachings of Mhynier and provide further healthcare gap data analyses and Morita for a healthcare timeline. Mhynier is directed to healthcare data interchange techniques. Morita relates to providing clinical documentation for a patient and timeline. Incorporating the healthcare data interchange techniques of Mynhier with the patient timeline and healthcare record as in Morita, the healthcare gap care alerts of Ghouri and the healthcare gap management and performance as in Dunleavy would thereby increase the functionality and effectiveness of implementing the claimed system and method of aggregating healthcare data from multiple data centers.
Regarding claims 10 and 16, independent claims 10 and 16 recite substantially the same limitations as included in independent claim 1. Thus, claims 10 and 16 are rejected under the same grounds of rejection and for the same reasoning as applied to claim 1, above.
Regarding claims 11 and 17, claims 11 and 17 recite substantially the same limitations as included in claim 2. Thus, claims 11 and 17 are rejected under the same grounds of rejection and for the same reasoning as applied to claim 2, above.
Regarding claims 14 and 20, claims 14 and 20 recite substantially the same limitations as included in claim 6. Thus, claims 14 and 20 are rejected under the same grounds of rejection and for the same reasoning as applied to claim 6, above.
Claims 3-4, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunleavy, in view of Mynhier, in view of Ghouri, in view of Morita and further in view of U.S. 2004/0220836 A1 to Doherty et al., hereinafter “Doherty.”
Regarding claim 3, Dunleavy as modified by Mynhier, Ghouri and Morita discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The references may not specifically describe but Doherty teaches wherein the first status can indicate one or more of: incorrect data in the first field, incomplete data in the first field, or missing data in the first field (See Doherty at least at Abstract; Paras. [0062], [0064]; Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dunleavy, Mynhier, Ghouri and Morita to incorporate the teachings of Doherty and provide various types of data in a particular field. Doherty is directed to a healthcare information management system. Doherty would improve the updating of statues and determining that records are complete or not with by analyzing data. Incorporating the healthcare information management as in Doherty with the patient timeline and healthcare record as in Morita, the healthcare gap care alerts of Ghouri, the healthcare data interchange techniques of Mynhier and the healthcare gap management and performance as in Dunleavy would thereby increase the functionality and effectiveness of implementing the claimed system and method of aggregating healthcare data from multiple data centers.
Regarding claim 4, Dunleavy as modified by Mynhier, Ghouri and Morita discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Ghouri further teaches determining, based on the first status, a request related to the first status; sending the request to be performed within a predetermined time period (See Ghouri at least at Paras. [0044]-[0048], [0052]-[0057] (“In certain embodiments of the invention, a method of detecting gaps in care may be performed by calculating gap in care alert thresholds using selected HEDIS and STAR performance measure rules. An exemplary list of HEDIS and STAR rules is show in Appendix 1 included in this application. In addition to these rules, Appendix 1 also includes a discussion of how such rules may be used to calculate a failure date. In certain embodiments of the invention, this failure date may be used to indicate when a gap in care may occur and provide an alert in advance of this date.”), [0064]-[0069], [0091]).). The references may not specifically describe but Doherty teaches monitoring whether the request was performed within the predetermined time period (See Doherty at least at Abstract; Paras. [0021], [0060]-[0061], [0066]; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dunleavy, Mynhier, Ghouri and Morita to incorporate the teachings of Doherty and provide monitoring particular performance. Doherty is directed to a healthcare information management system. Doherty would improve the updating of statues and determining that records are complete or not with by analyzing data. Incorporating the healthcare information management as in Doherty with the patient timeline and healthcare record as in Morita, the healthcare gap care alerts of Ghouri, the healthcare data interchange techniques of Mynhier and the healthcare gap management and performance as in Dunleavy would thereby increase the functionality and effectiveness of implementing the claimed system and method of aggregating healthcare data from multiple data centers.
Regarding claims 12 and 18, claims 12 and 18 recite substantially the same limitations as included in claim 4. Thus, claims 12 and 18 are rejected under the same grounds of rejection and for the same reasoning as applied to claim 4, above.
Claims 5, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunleavy, in view of Mynhier, in view of Ghouri, in view of Morita, in view of Doherty and further in view of U.S. 2014/0257852 A1 to Walker et al., hereinafter “Walker.”
Regarding claim 5, Dunleavy as modified by Mynhier, Ghouri and Morita discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The references may not specifically describe but Doherty teaches updating the user healthcare record in predetermined time intervals with updated medical records from the first source, the second source, and the third source (See Doherty at least at Abstract; Paras. [0003], [0021], [0062]; Claim 1). While Walker teaches determining, based on a comparison of the updated user healthcare record with the user healthcare record, a healthcare condition of the user, where the healthcare condition of the user indicates whether a health of the user has become better, worse, or stagnant (See Walker at least at Paras. [0007], [0061]-[0062], [0109]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mynhier, Ghouri, Morita, Dunleavy and Doherty to incorporate the teachings of Walker and provide a particular healthcare condition of the user that can be updated. Walker is directed to an interactive health care application for patients. Incorporating the interactive health care application as in Walker with the healthcare information management as in Doherty, the patient timeline and records of Morita, the healthcare gap care alerts of Ghouri, the healthcare data interchange techniques of Mynhier and the healthcare gap management and performance as in Dunleavy would increase the applicability and effectiveness of the claimed system and method for aggregating healthcare data.
Regarding claims 13 and 19. Claims 13 and 19 recite substantially the same limitations as included in claim 5. Thus, claims 13 and 19 are rejected under the same grounds of rejection and for the same reasoning as applied to claim 5, above.
Claims 7-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunleavy, in view of Mynhier, in view of Ghouri, in view of Morita and further in view of Walker.
Regarding claim 7, Dunleavy as modified by Mynhier, Ghouri and Morita discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The references may not specifically describe but Walker teaches wherein the set of medical records further comprises a fourth set of wearable data records from a fourth source different from the first source, second source, and third source (See Walker at least at Para. [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mynhier, Ghouri, Morita and Dunleavy to incorporate the teachings of Walker and provide a particular healthcare condition of the user that can be updated. Walker is directed to an interactive health care application for patients. Incorporating the interactive health care application as in Walker with the patient timeline and records of Morita, the healthcare gap care alerts of Ghouri, the healthcare data interchange techniques of Mynhier and the healthcare gap management and performance as in Dunleavy would increase the applicability and effectiveness of the claimed system and method for aggregating healthcare data.
Regarding claim 8, Dunleavy as modified by Mynhier, Ghouri, Morita and Walker discloses all the limitations of claim 7, and Walker further teaches wherein the fourth set of wearable data records comprises information related to an environment around the user (See Walker at least at Para. [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mynhier, Ghouri, Morita and Dunleavy to incorporate the teachings of Walker and provide a wearable device for data including environment. Walker is directed to an interactive health care application for patients. Incorporating the interactive health care application as in Walker with the healthcare gap management of Dunleavy, the patient timeline of Morita, the healthcare gap alert system of Ghouri and the healthcare data interchange techniques as in Mynhier would thereby increase the functionality and effectiveness of implementing the claimed system and method of aggregating healthcare data from multiple data centers.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as included in claim 7. Thus, claim 15 is rejected under the same grounds of rejection and for the same reasoning as applied to claim 7, above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunleavy, in view of Mynhier, in view of Ghouri, in view of Morita, in view of Walker and further in view of U.S. 10,665,348 B1 to Krayer et al., hereinafter “Krayer.”
Regarding claim 9, Dunleavy as modified by Mynhier, Ghouri, Morita and Walker discloses all the limitations of claim 7. The references may not specifically describe but Krayer further receiving a request to connect a new wearable device (See Krayer at least at Col 25, ln. 3-16; Fig. 7; See also Walker at Para. [0107]-[0108]; Figs. 1, 2).; responsive to synchronizing with the new wearable device, receiving new wearable device data from the new wearable device as a fifth data source (See Krayer at least at Col 25, ln. 3-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mynhier, Ghouri, Morita, Walker and Dunleavy to incorporate the teachings of Krayer and provide a wearable device for data including environment. Krayer is directed to event detection for certain conditions. Incorporating the event detection for conditions as in Krayer with the interactive health care application as in Walker, the healthcare gap management of Dunleavy, the patient timeline of Morita, the healthcare gap alert system of Ghouri and the healthcare data interchange techniques as in Mynhier would thereby increase the functionality and effectiveness of implementing the claimed system and method of aggregating healthcare data from multiple data centers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response and arguments filed February 23, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The following explains why:
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to prior art rejections are not persuasive. The amended claims have been addressed with regard to the revised 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection discussed above. The arguments pertaining to the prior art references at pages 15-18 are not persuasive. The arguments are moot in light of at least new reference Dunleavy, directed to a healthcare gap management system, and updated rejection discussed in detail above. The omission of the “or” qualifier of a healthcare gap comprising a missing diagnosis or missing physician appointment means dropping one of these and requiring new art is a direct result and necessitated by the amended claims. The references therefore illustrate the broadly recited claim elements of determining gaps in healthcare and suggesting an action item, as discussed above. As such, it is submitted that the cited prior art, including those identified by Applicant, in the field of managing healthcare gaps and predicting healthcare costs teaches and/or suggests all of the limitations of the pending claims under a broad and reasonable interpretation thereof.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to subject matter eligibility are not persuasive. The claims have been addressed with regard to the updated 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection discussed above, and considered under relevant sections of the MPEP and guidance from Director Squires in December of 2025. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments at Pages 10-14 of the remarks, as there is an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, as well as mental processes, and there has not been a showing of a practical application, as discussed above in further detail. The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, there is no clear improvement to the existing computer technology when looking at the claims as a whole. In addition, merely pointing out or expanding the grouping into which the previously-identified abstract idea falls does not change the basic thrust of the rejection.
In the pending application, there doesn’t appear to be any demonstrable improvement in technology per se. Furthermore, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Here, the Examiner cannot find, nor has the Applicant identified, any technological problem that was caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined. The claims do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since the additional non-abstract limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer component and cannot provide an inventive concept. It appears in the limitations general-purpose technology is merely being leveraged as a tool to link the process to a technological environment to communicate results or filtered data from multiple patient data sources or databases. For example, there is no explanation or any claimed details on how the analytical models are “applied” to calculate a healthcare timeline for a user based on the various patient healthcare data that are obtained. Nor is there any further explanation to how “standardizing” a set of medical records is achieved. Moreover, the determination of a gap in healthcare based on different status of data amounts to basic filtering of specified data, even if a “machine” is obtaining various data and a processor runs a computer a model thereupon. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, there is nothing in the current claim language that the Examiner finds to be novel or unconventional. While subject matter eligibility and novelty are separate analyses, the instant claims do not appear to be doing anything different than what is already being used in the art, not advancing the technology itself as a whole, nor resulting in a transformative practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 WILLIAM T. MONTICELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-4871. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th; 08:30-18:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FONYA LONG can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/WILLIAM T. MONTICELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/FONYA M LONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights