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 .
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.
Examiner Notes
(1) In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121 (b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131 (b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
(2) Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Remarks
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment file on 10/30/2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Full details of 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection analysis is provided below.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, and 8 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection (See new references of Siegrist and D’AMORE).
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 1-4, 6-17 are directed to non-statutory subject matter because it does not fall within four category of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C 101 (Process, machine manufacture or composition of matter).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (Step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B). Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas.
Analysis
Claims 1 and 8 subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
STEP 2A, PRONG l (Claim 1):
Limitation recites:
“using a computing device comprising a front-end component, a back-end component, and a database component”
“using the front-end component, receiving one or more questionnaire criteria input from a client device, the client device being configured communicate with the front-end component, wherein the front-end component comprises a graphical user interface (GUI) is configured to: enable communication between the computing device and the client device; and communicate with the back-end component; and using the back-end component: processing the questionnaire criteria received from the front-end component”
“converting the questionnaire criteria to the performance information”
“analyzing the performance information specific to the member, wherein the analyzing comprises: requesting performance information of a specified member from the front-end component, using the client device”
“and storing the performance information within the database component”
“identifying the requested performance information via communication between the front-end component and the back-end component”
“using the back-end component, accessing the requested performance information by querying the database component”
“using the back-end component, processing the performance information specific to the member to generate a report of the performance information specific to the member, wherein the report comprises: the performance information specific to the member; and comparative performance information”
Claims 1 recites limitations “processing”(b) “converting” (c) “analyzing” (d) “identifying” (g), and “processing” (h) which are all steps that could be performed in the mind hence are mental processes. These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, "processing" (b) - in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper recognizing the received questionnaire data; “converting” (c)- human mind can recognize the contextual information of the questionnaire criteria that something they can mentally utilize the contextual information for making judgement. “analyzing” (d)- human mind can realize how well/bad the physician/dentist have performed their tasks; “processing”(h)-human mind can form the judgement about the physician/dentist regarding their performance in comparison to other physicians/dentists.
Further noted, this claim is also directed at providing performance information for a specific dentist and comparative performance information. The purpose being as stated in specification, at page 2 to ensure dentists stay on performance schedule for billing to achieve efficiency and accountability and “can achieve their performance goals.” Further, the remarks is noted that the claims are for a “defined process of capturing and analysis information specific to a given member of a dental office.”
In that sense, the limitations (b-d), (g-h) are also recite an abstract idea as a form of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, as falling in the subgrouping of “Managing Personal Behavior” in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). Specifically, the claim manages the personal behavior of the dentist and keeping them on track to achieve their performance goals.
Accordingly, limitation (b-d), (g-h) recites a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG 2 (Claim 1):
The limitations “using a computing device comprising a front-end…”, “using the front-end…”, “using the backend component…”, which describe generic computer components, akin to adding the word "apply it" in connection with the abstract idea.
Limitations recites “requesting performance information…”, “storing the performance information”, “accessing the requested performance information…” which merely constitute insignificant solution activity (mere data gathering and output; see MPEP 2106.05(g) – presenting offers, selecting information examples); also see MPEP 2106.05(d), II.; receive/transmit over network; store/retrieve from memory/storage).
STEP 2B (Claim 1):
Under step 2B Limitations recites “requesting performance information…”, “storing the performance information”, “accessing the requested performance information…” which merely constitute insignificant solution activity (mere data gathering and output; see MPEP 2106.05(g) – presenting offers, selecting information examples); also see MPEP 2106.05(d), II.; receive/transmit over network; store/retrieve from memory/storage) for demonstrating well understood, routine, conventional (WURC). (See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
STEP 2A (Claim 8):
Under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Limitation recites:
(i)“a client device, configured to be used by members of a dental office or patients of a dental office”
(ii) “a front-end component of a computing device,…configured to enable the client device to interact…”
(iii) “display a questionnaire…”
(iv) “record one or more input”
(v) “display one or more summary report…”
(vi) “receive the on one more recorded inputs”
(vii) “process the one or more recorded inputs…”
(viii) “Communicate the performance data”
(ix) “query the database component”
(x) “generate one or more member-specific reports from the stored performance data”
(xi) “communicate the one or more member-specific report”
Claims 8 recites limitations “processing”(vii) “generate one or more member-specific report” (x) which are all steps that could be performed in the mind hence are mental processes. These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, "processing" (vii) - in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper recognizing the received questionnaire data; “generate one or more member-specific report” (x)- can form the judgement about the physician/dentist regarding their performance.
Further noted, this claim is also directed at providing performance information for a specific dentist and comparative performance information. The purpose being as stated in specification, at page 2 to ensure dentists stay on performance schedule for billing to achieve efficiency and accountability and “can achieve their performance goals.” Further, the remarks is noted that the claims are for a “defined process of capturing and analysis information specific to a given member of a dental office.”
In that sense, the limitations are also reciting an abstract idea as a form of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, as falling in the subgrouping of “Managing Personal Behavior” in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). Specifically, the claim manages the personal behavior of the dentist and keeping them on track to achieve their performance goals.
STEP 2A, PRONG 2 (Claim 8):
Limitations “a client device, configured to be used…”, “a front-end component…”, “a database component”, “backend component” which describe generic computer components, akin to adding the word "apply it" in connection with the abstract idea.
Limitations recites “display a questionnaire…”, “record one or more inputs”, “display one or more summary report..”, “receive one or more recorded inputs into performance data”, “communicate performance data…”, “query the database component…”, which merely constitute insignificant solution activity (mere data gathering and output; see MPEP 2106.05(g) – presenting offers, selecting information examples); also see MPEP 2106.05(d), II.; receive/transmit over network; store/retrieve from memory/storage).
STEP 2B (Claim 8):
Under step 2B Limitations recites “display a questionnaire…”, “record one or more inputs”, “display one or more summary report..”, “receive one or more recorded inputs into performance data”, “communicate performance data…”, “query the database component…”, which merely constitute insignificant solution activity (mere data gathering and output; see MPEP 2106.05(g) – presenting offers, selecting information examples); also see MPEP 2106.05(d), II.; receive/transmit over network; store/retrieve from memory/storage) for demonstrating well understood, routine, conventional (WURC). (See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Viewed as a whole, the additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2-4, 6-7 and 9-17 are dependent on their respective parent claims and include all the limitations of these claims; these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus the claims are direct to abstract idea.
Claims 1-4, 6-17 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 1-4 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McEachern (U.S. Patent No. 8,489,414 B2) in view of Siegrist et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0133290 A1), further in view of D’AMORE (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0074378 A1).
Regarding claim 1, McEachern teaches a method comprising:
using a computing device comprising a front-end component, a back-end component, and a database component: generating performance information specific to a member of a dental office (col. 4, line 57-61, col. 5, line 19-21, utilizing the ICS [integrated Communication System], or some other survey methodology and execution platform, for interacting with survey participant to obtain survey data; the survey participant include consumer of the medical devices provided by the medical provider, employees and contractor of the medical provider; noted, consumer is interpreted as patient and employees/contractor is interpreted as members of a dental office; It is noted that one of the ordinary skill in the art would know that dental/oral/physician/orthodontal/heath care/medical clinic/facility/office/hospital are examples of heath care facility/medical professional office; also see col. 8, line 25-18, the term “healthcare provider” refers to the person you saw during your visit; a health care provider can be a doctor, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or nurse midwife; the results of the survey will be used to make improvements in the care that patient receives), comprising:
using the front-end component, receiving one or more questionnaire criteria input from a client device, the client device being configured to communicate with the front-end component (col. 4, line 57-61, col. 5, line 19-21, utilizing the ICS [integrated Communication System], or some other survey methodology and execution platform, for interacting with survey participant to obtain survey data; the survey participant include consumer of the medical devices provided by the medical provider, employees and contractor of the medical provider),
wherein the front-end component comprises graphical user interface (GUI) and is configured to: enable communication between the computing device and the client device; and communicate with the back-end component; and using the back-end component: processing the questionnaire criteria received from the front-end (col. 4, line 57-61, col. 5, line 19-21, utilizing the ICS [integrated Communication System], or some other survey methodology and execution platform, for interacting with survey participant to obtain survey data; the survey participant include consumer of the medical devices provided by the medical provider, employees and contractor of the medical provider; noted, consumer is interpreted as patient and employees/contractor is interpreted as members of a dental office; also see Fig. 2, col. 19, line 3851, col. 20, line 39-45, individual workers might access the Office Team View-point module using an external connection device, such as telephone or internet; the module program presents questions to the respondent in a sequential fashion, which reads on as claimed).
McEachern does not explicitly disclose: converting the questionnaire criteria to the performance information; and storing the performance information within the database component.
Siegrist teaches:
converting the questionnaire criteria to the performance information (paragraph [0022], the physician quality information system draws information from a number of databases that include claim data, patient satisfaction data, and public discharge data; also see “CAHPS Clinician and Group Survey Field Test Item set” appendix; paragraph [0024], quality rule application engine is programmed to perform process performance, patient satisfaction, and outcome computations; also see paragraph [0060], the satisfaction metrics are compiled for each physician based on answers received from patients to question in the survey; also see paragraph [0023], a quality rules application engine access the data source databases and run algorithms on the data to process and to compile the available data into metrics for each physician); and storing the performance information within the database component (paragraph [0025], the metrics after being compiled and/or computed are loaded from the quality rules application engine to database; also see paragraph [0060], the satisfaction metrics are compiled for each physician based on answers received from patients to question in the survey).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include converting the questionnaire criteria to the performance information; and storing the performance information within the database component into physician office analysis of McEachern.
Motivation to do so would be to incorporate converting the questionnaire criteria to the performance information; and storing the performance information within the database component to provide member of a health plan or consumers with a meaningful and sound approach to evaluating physician performance (Siegrist, paragraph [0004], line 1-4).
McEachern as modified by Siegrist do not explicitly disclose: analyzing the performance information specific to the member, wherein the analyzing comprises: requesting performance information of a specified member from the front-end component, using the client device; identifying the requested performance information via communication between the front-end component and the back-end component; using the back-end component, accessing the requested performance information by querying the database component.
D’AMORE teaches: analyzing the performance information specific to the member, wherein the analyzing comprises: requesting performance information of a specified member from the front-end component, using the client device (paragraph [0025], a request is received on mobile device from a user to access performance data indicative of at least one performance metric of a physician);
identifying the requested performance information via communication between the front-end component and the back-end component (paragraph [0014], the physician’s performance judged by certain metrics; paragraph [0026], performance data is received that is indicative of the at least one performance metric of the physician);
using the back-end component, accessing the requested performance information by querying the database component (paragraph [0026], performance data is received that is indicative of the at least one performance metric of the physician).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include analyzing the performance information specific to the member, wherein the analyzing comprises: requesting performance information of a specified member from the front-end component, using the client device; identifying the requested performance information via communication between the front-end component and the back-end component; using the back-end component, accessing the requested performance information by querying the database component into physician office analysis of McEachern.
Motivation to do so would be to include analyzing the performance information specific to the member, wherein the analyzing comprises: requesting performance information of a specified member from the front-end component, using the client device; identifying the requested performance information via communication between the front-end component and the back-end component; using the back-end component, accessing the requested performance information by querying the database component for accountability and other managerial decisions such as compensation, costs, and billing (D’AMORE, paragraph [0003], line 10-11).
McEachern as modified by Siegrist and D’AMORE further teach:
using the back-end component, processing the performance information specific to the member to generate a report of the performance information specific to the member (D’AMORE, paragraph [0026], performance data is received that is indicative of the at least one performance metric of the physician; also see paragraph [0015]-[0016], physician metrics are provided for display on a user (physician or other healthcare professional), mobile device; the physician metrics generally pertain to physician performance, including cost and efficiency; example for physician metrics available for display are patient length of stay, average length of stay, cost per stay; etc.; while Siegrist, paragraph [0062], teaches there are differences in the physician comparison reports generated by the physician quality information depending on which benchmark is chosen to apply in the process; also see Fig. 6-8, paragraph [0038], the physician quality information uses the consumer preferences to develop a report that is tailored to the consumer’s interest, by performing weighting calculation and specifying the data set used to generate the report), wherein the report comprises: the performance information specific to the member; and comparative performance information (D’AMORE, paragraph [0026], performance data is received that is indicative of the at least one performance metric of the physician; also see paragraph [0015]-[0016], physician metrics are provided for display on a user (physician or other healthcare professional), mobile device; the physician metrics generally pertain to physician performance, including cost and efficiency; example for physician metrics available for display are patient length of stay, average length of stay, cost per stay; etc.; also see paragraph [0021],the user may access an interface comparing him/her to other physicians; while Siegrist, Fig. 6, paragraph [0038], teaches the physician quality information uses the consumer preferences to develop a report that is tailored to the consumer’s interest, by performing weighting calculation and specifying the data set used to generate the report; also see Fig. 5, paragraph [0031]-[0032], the report is created allows consumer to navigate through comparison of the physicians down to specific metrics).
Regarding claim 2, McEachern as modified by Siegrist and D’AMORE teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach the one or more questionnaire criteria comprises numerical, single choice, multiple choice, yes or no responses collected from the questionnaires (Siegrist, see “CAHPS Clinician and Group Survey Field Test Item set” appendix ; while McEachern, survey questionnaires format can be seen in col. 8-16).
Regarding claim 3, McEachern as modified by Siegrist and D’AMORE teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach using the back-end component, applying set of criteria to the data performance information specific to the member to identify trends, patterns, and anomalies in a performance of the member (McEachern, col. 24, line 45- 51, col. 8, line 8-14, col. 18, line 12-17, the raw survey data is processed, formatted, and made available to the appropriate persons via the POVs, providing useful information and conclusions so that the management of the organization is in a position to better understand the cause of the deficiency and make proper corrections; analysis modules in a limitless number of ways immediately at the discretion of the survey consumer, the survey responses can be compared to cohort or national comparative groups, presented by the POVs; the clinical and patient make a plan based upon information; also see col. 8, line 25-18, the term “healthcare provider” refers to the person you saw during your visit; a health care provider can be a doctor, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or nurse midwife; the results of the survey will be used to make improvements in the care that patient receives; also see col. 23, line 62-67, generating doctor rating measures comprising: quality of medical measures; doctor performance measures, doctor satisfaction measures,…).
Regarding claim 4, McEachern as modified by Siegrist and D’AMORE teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach wherein the comparative performance information comprises: a gold standard equivalent, time for one or more indicated tasks; and a customized standard time for the one or more indicated tasks (McEachern, col. 8, line 8-14, col. 10, analysis modules in a limitless number of ways immediately at the discretion of the survey consumer, the survey responses can be compared to cohort or national comparative groups, presented by the POVs; the responses in regards to length of time spent waiting at the office, while Siegrist, see “CAHPS Clinician and Group Survey Field Test Item set” appendix; also see paragraph [0062], there are differences in the physician comparison reports generated by the physician quality information depending on which benchmark is chosen to apply in the process; also see Fig. 6-8, paragraph [0038], the physician quality information uses the consumer preferences to develop a report that is tailored to the consumer’s interest, by performing weighting calculation and specifying the data set used to generate the report).
Regarding claim 8, McEachern teaches a computer-based system, comprising:
a client device, configured to be used by members of a dental office or patients of a dental office (col. 4, line 57-61, col. 5, line 19-21, utilizing the ICS [integrated Communication System], or some other survey methodology and execution platform, for interacting with survey participant to obtain survey data; the survey participant include consumer of the medical devices provided by the medical provider, employees and contractor of the medical provider; noted, consumer is interpreted as patient and employees/contractor is interpreted as members of a dental office; It is noted that one of the ordinary skill in the art would know that dental/oral/physician/orthodontal/heath care/medical clinic/facility/office/hospital are examples of heath care facility/medical professional office);
a front-end component of a computing device, the front-end component comprising a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to enable the client device to interact with the front-end component, wherein the client device is configured to: display a questionnaire to a member or patient (col. 4, line 57-61, col. 5, line 19-21, utilizing the ICS [integrated Communication System], or some other survey methodology and execution platform, for interacting with survey participant to obtain survey data; the survey participant include consumer of the medical devices provided by the medical provider, employees and contractor of the medical provider; noted, consumer is interpreted as patient and employees/contractor is interpreted as members of a dental office; also see Fig. 2, col. 19, line 3851, col. 20, line 39-45, individual workers might access the Office Team View-point module using an external connection device, such as telephone or internet; the module program presents questions to the respondent in a sequential fashion, which reads on as claimed);
record one or more inputs by the member or patient to the questionnaire (Fig. 2, col. 19, line 3851, col. 20, line 39-45, individual workers might access the Office Team View-point module using an external connection device, such as telephone or internet; the module program presents questions to the respondent in a sequential fashion; also see Fig. 5-6, col. 20, line 63-65, survey data are stored in the Comparative Practice Data Repository);
a back-end component of the computing device, the back-end component being configured to interact with the front-end component (Fig. 1-5, Fig. 2, col. 19, line 3851, col. 20, line 39-45, individual workers might access the Office Team View-point module using an external connection device, such as telephone or internet; the module program presents questions to the respondent in a sequential fashion; also see Fig. 5-6, col. 20, line 63-65, survey data are stored in the Comparative Practice Data Repository).
McEachern does not explicitly disclose: a database component configured to interact with the back-end component, wherein the back-end component is configured to: receive the one or more recorded inputs; process the one or more recorded inputs into performance data specific to an identified member; communicate the performance data to the database component for storage of the performance data.
Siegrist teaches:
a database component configured to interact with the back-end component, wherein the back-end component is configured to: receive the one or more recorded inputs (paragraph [0022], the physician quality information system draws information from a number of databases that include claim data, patient satisfaction data, and public discharge data; also see “CAHPS Clinician and Group Survey Field Test Item set” appendix);
process the one or more recorded inputs into performance data specific to an identified member (paragraph [0024], quality rule application engine is programmed to perform process performance, patient satisfaction, and outcome computations; also see paragraph [0060], the satisfaction metrics are compiled for each physician based on answers received from patients to question in the survey; also see paragraph [0023], a quality rules application engine access the data source databases and run algorithms on the data to process and to compile the available data into metrics for each physician);
communicate the performance data to the database component for storage of the performance data (paragraph [0025], the metrics after being compiled and/or computed are loaded from the quality rules application engine to database).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include a database component configured to interact with the back-end component, wherein the back-end component is configured to: receive the one or more recorded inputs; process the one or more recorded inputs into performance data specific to an identified member; communicate the performance data to the database component for storage of the performance data into physician office analysis of McEachern.
Motivation to do so would be to incorporate a database component configured to interact with the back-end component, wherein the back-end component is configured to: receive the one or more recorded inputs; process the one or more recorded inputs into performance data specific to an identified member; communicate the performance data to the database component for storage of the performance data to provide member of a health plan or consumers with a meaningful and sound approach to evaluating physician performance (Siegrist, paragraph [0004], line 1-4).
McEachern as modified by Siegrist do not explicitly disclose: query the database component to access stored performance data; and display one or more summary reports pertaining to a specific member.
D’AMORE teaches: query the database component to access stored performance data (paragraph [0025], a request is received on mobile device from a user to access performance data indicative of at least one performance metric of a physician; also see paragraph [0014], the physician’s performance judged by certain metrics; paragraph [0026], performance data is received that is indicative of the at least one performance metric of the physician); and display one or more summary reports pertaining to a specific member (paragraph [0026], performance data is received that is indicative of the at least one performance metric of the physician; also see paragraph [0015]-[0016], physician metrics are provided for display on a user (physician or other healthcare professional)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include querying the database component to access stored performance data; and display one or more summary reports pertaining to a specific member into physician office analysis of McEachern.
Motivation to do so would be to include querying the database component to access stored performance data; and display one or more summary reports pertaining to a specific member for accountability and other managerial decisions such as compensation, costs, and billing (D’AMORE, paragraph [0003], line 10-11).
McEachern as modified by Siegrist and D’AMORE further teach:
generate one or more member-specific reports from the stored performance data (D’AMORE, paragraph [0026], performance data is received that is indicative of the at least one performance metric of the physician; also see paragraph [0015]-[0016], physician metrics are provided for display on a user (physician or other healthcare professional), mobile device; the physician metrics generally pertain to physician performance, including cost and efficiency; example for physician metrics available for display are patient length of stay, average length of stay, cost per stay; etc.; while Siegrist, paragraph [0062], teaches there are differences in the physician comparison reports generated by the physician quality information depending on which benchmark is chosen to apply in the process; also see Fig. 6-8, paragraph [0038], the physician quality information uses the consumer preferences to develop a report that is tailored to the consumer’s interest, by performing weighting calculation and specifying the data set used to generate the report);
and communicate the one or more member-specific reports to the front-end component and display one or more summary reports pertaining to a specific member (D’AMORE, paragraph [0026], performance data is received that is indicative of the at least one performance metric of the physician; also see paragraph [0015]-[0016], physician metrics are provided for display on a user (physician or other healthcare professional), mobile device; the physician metrics generally pertain to physician performance, including cost and efficiency; example for physician metrics available for display are patient length of stay, average length of stay, cost per stay; etc.; also see paragraph [0021],the user may access an interface comparing him/her to other physicians; while Siegrist, Fig. 6, paragraph [0038], teaches the physician quality information uses the consumer preferences to develop a report that is tailored to the consumer’s interest, by performing weighting calculation and specifying the data set used to generate the report; also see Fig. 5, paragraph [0031]-[0032], the report is created allows consumer to navigate through comparison of the physicians down to specific metrics).
Regarding claim 9, McEachern as modified by Siegrist and D’AMORE teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 8, further teach: wherein the client device comprises a computing device (McEachern, col. 2, line 26-38, the ICS utilizes modern computer and networking technology; also see col. 4, line 28-32, providing an automated, computerized means for evaluating the quality of service providers in general, and medical service providers, especially doctor offices).
Regarding claim 10, McEachern as modified by Siegrist and D’AMORE teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 8, further teach: wherein the front-end component is configured to: make a request to the back-end component through an Application Programming Interface (API) and receives data (McEachern, Fig. 1-5, Fig. 2, col. 19, line 3851, col. 20, line 39-45, individual workers might access the Office Team View-point module using an external connection device, such as telephone or internet; the module program presents questions to the respondent in a sequential fashion; also see Fig. 5-6, col. 20, line 63-65, survey data are stored in the Comparative Practice Data Repository).
Regarding claim 11, McEachern as modified by Siegrist and D’AMORE teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 8, further teach wherein the back-end component includes authentication middleware; a data processing module; data recording module and data retrieving module (McEachern. Fig. 1-2, col. 5, line 44-67, the physician office Viewpoint Survey Sub system utilizes four module to collect data: Patient View point module, and Office Team Viewpoint module, an Office Fiscal Performance Viewpoint module, a personal clinical data analysis Module, Physician Office Data presentation module; the Comparative practice Data Repository stores data collected from the surveys with participants while D’AMORE, paragraph [0015] , teaches the physician metrics may be provided for display after the user provides an authentication to access the user’s physician metrics; also see paragraph [0026], information is received that the user has been authenticated; the authentication may be received from a server that also provides access to the performance data).
Regarding claim 12, McEachern as modified by Siegrist and D’AMORE teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 11, further teach wherein the data processing module is configured to receives data from data retrieving module receives data from the data retrieving module, and the data from the data retrieving module comprises, but is not limited to, numerical, single choice, multiple choice, yes or no responses collected from the questionnaires (McEachern, survey questionnaires format can be seen in col. 8-16; also see Fig. 1-5, Fig. 2, col. 19, line 38-51, col. 20, line 39-45, individual workers might access the Office Team View-point module using an external connection device, such as telephone or internet; the module program presents questions to the respondent in a sequential fashion; also see col. 5, line 44-67, the physician office Viewpoint Survey Sub system utilizes four module to collect data: Patient View point module, and Office Team Viewpoint module, an Office Fiscal Performance Viewpoint module, a personal clinical data analysis Module, Physician Office Data presentation module; the Comparative practice Data Repository stores data collected from the surveys with participants; also see col. 19, line 11-67, col. 20, line 3-37).
Regarding claim 13, McEachern as modified by Siegrist and D’AMORE teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 12, further teach wherein the data processing module contains an algorithm that is configured to apply set of criteria to the data to help identify trends, patterns, and anomalies to help evaluate performance in the dental office and to provide related educational resources (McEachern, col. 24, line 45- 51, col. 8, line 8-14, col. 18, line 12-17, the raw survey data is processed, formatted, and made available to the appropriate persons via the POVs, providing useful information and conclusions so that the management of the organization is in a position to better understand the cause of the deficiency and make proper corrections; analysis modules in a limitless number of ways immediately at the discretion of the survey consumer, the survey responses can be compared to cohort or national comparative groups, presented by the POVs; the clinical and patient make a plan based upon information).
Regarding claim 14, McEachern as modified by Siegrist and D’AMORE teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 13, further teach wherein the data processing module is configured to: the actual time spent by the member for one or more tasks (Siegrist, see “CAHPS Clinician and Group Survey Field Test Item set” appendix, while McEachern, col. 8, line 8-14, col. 10, teaches analysis modules in a limitless number of ways immediately at the discretion of the survey consumer, the survey responses can be compared to cohort or national comparative groups, presented by the POVs; the responses in regards to length of time spent waiting at the office); and a gold standard equivalent for the one or more tasks (Siegrist, paragraph [0071], an algorithm that can be used for obtaining a metric and how the rankings can be implemented in the physician quality information system; the data for each physician that is available for comparison is organized; this include ranking and sorting the physician for each metrics; also see paragraph [0045], a performance ratio, which the expected percentage divided by actual percentage, can also be displayed to help evaluate whether the physician’s performance on a given metric is significant different than the benchmark; noted, benchmark is interpreted as “a gold standard” while McEachern, col. 8, line 8-14, col. 10, teaches analysis modules in a limitless number of ways immediately at the discretion of the survey consumer, the survey responses can be compared to cohort or national comparative groups, presented by the POVs; the responses in regards to length of time spent waiting at the office); and perform a comparative analysis to create a comparative analysis data of: the actual time spent on the one or more tasks by the given member; and the gold standard equivalent for the one or more tasks (McEachern, col. 8, line 8-14, col. 10, analysis modules in a limitless number of ways immediately at the discretion of the survey consumer, the survey responses can be compared to cohort or national comparative groups, presented by the POVs; the responses in regards to length of time spent waiting at the office).
Regarding claim 15, McEachern as modified by Siegrist and D’AMORE teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 14, further teach wherein the data processing module is configured to: collect the comparative analysis data; and communicate the comparative analysis data to the front-end component, the front-end component is configured to compile the data into a graphical format such as a line graph which is rendered on the client device for an end-user to see (D’AMORE, paragraph [0026], performance data is received that is indicative of the at least one performance metric of the physician; also see paragraph [0015]-[0016], physician metrics are provided for display on a user (physician or other healthcare professional); also see paragraph [0018], the first physician metric is displayed using a pie chart; the second physician metric is displayed using bar graph; the third metric is displayed using a table; the physician metric may be displayed in any number of styles; example styles are a bar graph, a pie chart, a line graph, etc.; while Siegrist, paragraph [0071], an algorithm that can be used for obtaining a metric and how the rankings can be implemented in the physician quality information system; the data for each physician that is available for comparison is organized; this include ranking and sorting the physician for each metrics; also see paragraph [0045], a performance ratio, which the expected percentage divided by actual percentage, can also be displayed to help evaluate whether the physician’s performance on a given metric is significant different than the benchmark; also see Fig. 6, paragraph [0038], the physician quality information uses the consumer preferences to develop a report that is tailored to the consumer’s interest, by performing weighting calculation and specifying the data set used to generate the report; also see Fig. 5, paragraph [0031]-[0032], the report is created allows consumer to navigate through comparison of the physicians down to specific metrics, while McEachern, col. 23, line 22-35, teaches the compass viewpoint is a data presentation paradigm that presents data from a family of surveys in an integrated, balanced manner utilizing a clinical improvement process so that the consumer can evaluate the performance of various aspects of the clinic and make changes to keep all components in optimal balance. For example, on the compass face for the Physician Office Viewpoint Surveys, Functional Health status can be represented as the North point of the compass, patient satisfaction with office processes, employee job satisfaction, and team function can be represented by the East point of the compass, Fiscal performance by the South point, and Biological function by the West point, using the clinical improvement process and integrative Compass Viewpoint approach to data display. The resulting survey information can be formatted for display in audio, graphical, video, and textual context as appropriate for the type of information displayed. Charts and graphs can be generated from this information when desirable).
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McEachern (U.S. Patent No. 8,489,414 B2) in view of Siegrist et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0133290 A1) and D’AMORE (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0074378 A1), further in view of Shan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,536,955 B1).
Regarding claim 6, McEachern as modified by Siegrist and D’AMORE teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose: using a Natural Language Processing (NLP) unit of the back-end component, processing the questionnaire criteria received from the front-end component.
Shan teaches: using a Natural Language Processing (NLP) unit of the back-end component, processing the questionnaire criteria received from the front-end component (Fig. 5, col. 7, line 24-38, col. 8, line 24-67, the journey represent particular implementations of disease management process; the journey for particular disease are further customized for particular patients; the platform can use survey or interview data to conduct further research; the interview data can be extracted from posts and analyzed by using natural language processing to extract meaningful information; the journey can be built and refined to improve communication management by the platform).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include using a Natural Language Processing (NLP) unit of the back-end component, processing the questionnaire criteria received from the front-end component into physician office analysis of McEachern.
Motivation to do so would be to incorporate using a Natural Language Processing (NLP) unit of the back-end component, processing the questionnaire criteria received from the front-end component to improve patient experience by integrating with systems and resources to create a connected, seamless treatment that drives user stickiness and loyalty while managing communications to achieve a collective objective (Shan, col. 4, line 26-30).
Regarding claim 7, McEachern as modified by Siegrist, D’AMORE and Shan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 6, further teach: wherein the Natural Language Processing (NLP) unit is used in conjunction with a Machine Learning module as a part of a larger Deep Learning/Artificial Intelligence (AI) unit that would allow the computing device to function as a fully self-sustained virtual consultant and provide more detailed analysis to an end-user (Shan, Fig. 5, col. 7, line 24-38, col. 8, line 24-67, col. 9, line 1-6, the journey represent particular implementations of disease management process; the journey for particular disease are further customized for particular patients; the platform can use survey or interview data to conduct further research; the interview data can be extracted from posts and analyzed by using natural language processing to extract meaningful information; the journey can be built and refined to improve communication management by the platform; the platform stages communication and content).
Regarding claim 16, McEachern as modified by Siegrist and D’AMORE teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 15, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein the data processing module is configured to use a Natural Language Processing (NLP) unit to read, decipher, understand, and interpret the human language questionnaire.
Shan teaches: wherein the data processing module is configured to use a Natural Language Processing (NLP) unit to read, decipher, understand, and interpret the human language questionnaire (Fig. 5, col. 7, line 24-38, col. 8, line 24-67, the journey represent particular implementations of disease management process; the journey for particular disease are further customized for particular patients; the platform can use survey or interview data to conduct further research; the interview data can be extracted from posts and analyzed by using natural language processing to extract meaningful information; the journey can be built and refined to improve communication management by the platform).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein the data processing module is configured to use a Natural Language Processing (NLP) unit to read, decipher, understand, and interpret the human language questionnaire into physician office analysis of McEachern.
Motivation to do so would be to incorporate wherein the data processing module is configured to use a Natural Language Processing (NLP) unit to read, decipher, understand, and interpret the human language questionnaire to improve patient experience by integrating with systems and resources to create a connected, seamless treatment that drives user stickiness and loyalty while managing communications to achieve a collective objective (Shan, col. 4, line 26-30).
Regarding claim 17, McEachern as modified by Siegrist, D’AMORE, Shan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 16, further teach wherein the Natural Language Processing (NLP) unit is configured to be used in conjunction with a Machine Learning module as a part of a larger Deep Learning/Artificial Intelligence (AI) unit that configured to enable the system to function as a fully self-sustained virtual consultant and to provide more detailed analysis to the end-user (Shan, Fig. 5, col. 7, line 24-38, col. 8, line 24-67, col. 9, line 1-6, the journey represent particular implementations of disease management process; the journey for particular disease are further customized for particular patients; the platform can use survey or interview data to conduct further research; the interview data can be extracted from posts and analyzed by using natural language processing to extract meaningful information; the journey can be built and refined to improve communication management by the platform; the platform stages communication and content).
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 KEN HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571)272-4085. 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.
/KEN HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168