DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant’s communication filed on September 22, 2025.
Claims 1, 16 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-7, 9-10 and 12-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
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 1-7, 9-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1, 16 and 19 are directed to a method, a system and a manufacture respectively and therefore all fall into one of the four statutory categories. (Step 1: Yes, the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories).
Step 2A analysis - Prong one:
The substantially similar independent method, system, and computer readable medium claims, taking claim 1 as exemplary, recite the following: receiving demographic information related to a member; receiving health information related to the member, the health information including a medical condition code, a health risk assessment, health insurance plan information, and health insurance claim data; determining a member profile using the demographic information and the health information; selecting content for the member based on the member profile by identifying an application from a plurality of applications…; selecting a computing device from a repository of computing devices for the member; providing the selected content to the selected computing device by installing the identified application on the computing device of the member; identifying a health insurance company and/or a medical provider related to the member; …; and causing the selected computing device to be packaged and shipped to the member.
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a health management server (computer) (claim 16) or one or more processors (claim 19), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the one or more processors and the server, this claim encompasses a person collecting data related to a member in order to create a profile for the member, selecting content (i.e., an algorithm) based on the created profile, selecting a computing device in order to install the selected content (i.e., an algorithm), identifying a health insurance company or medical provider related to the member, and instructing the device be packaged and shipped to the member in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The step of causing the selected computing device to be packaged and shipped to the member is being examined as part of the abstract idea because this limitation may simply be displaying or outputting data. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes, the claims are abstract).
Step 2A analysis - Prong two:
Claims 1, 16 and 19 recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea. Claims 1, 16 and 19 recite a computing device, a content database and “configuring one or more fields of the identified application for accessing one or more application programming interfaces ("APIs") of a server of the health insurance company and/or the medical provider related to the member”. Claim 16 further recites a health management server. Claim 19 further recites non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, one or more processors, a computing system, and a network. The claims are applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recited instructions appear to be software.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite a computing device, a content database, a health management server, non-transitory computer readable media, one or more processors, a computing system, a network and “configuring one or more fields of the identified application for accessing one or more application programming interfaces ("APIs") of a server of the health insurance company and/or the medical provider related to the member”; all of which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component. For example, Applicant’s specification explains that the processor(s) reads computer programs, executes control functions, receives inputs, analyzed data, outputs content, etc. (see Applicant’s specification paras 7, 21, 42-43 and 46).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1, 16 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea without practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B Analysis:
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
Applicant describes embodiments of the disclosure at a very high level to include the use of a wide variety of servers, processors, networks, computing devices, memories and storage mediums, etc. (See paras 15, 21, 29, 31, 33-34, 48). The invention, may use any computer via any transmission medium (a communication network or broadcast waves) capable of transmitting the program.
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization.
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 a computing device, a content database, a health management server, non-transitory computer readable media, one or more processors, a computing system, a network and “configuring one or more fields of the identified application for accessing one or more application programming interfaces ("APIs") of a server of the health insurance company and/or the medical provider related to the member” to perform all of the steps discussed above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims do not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Step 2B: No, the claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-15, 17-18 and 20 further define the abstract idea that is presented in independent Claims 1, 16 and 19 respectively, and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activities and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above. Further, Claims 12, 17-18 recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea. Claims 12 and 17 recite a network, Claim 17 further recites ones or more medical servers, and Claim 18 recites a member profile database. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For example, as noted above, the Applicant’s specification indicates the use of known databases, networks and servers. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered 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 claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1-7, 9-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 9-10, 12-13 and 16-19 Are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al. (US 20180052958) in view of Schmidt et al. (US 20180075208), further in view of Niwa (US 20080004912).
Regarding Claim 1, Crawford discloses the following:
A method for selective content provision for members of a health management system, the method comprising: receiving demographic information related to a member; (Crawford discloses a personal digital health portfolio (“PDHP”) system and method that can store and retrieve health records, and the patient medical records or patient data can comprise…patient demographic information – paras 10, 22 and 26)
receiving health information related to the member, the health information including a medical condition code, (Crawford discloses that the PDHP system and method can translate ICD10 codes into a more understandable format and store the translation as a new data entry – para 76)
health insurance plan information, and health insurance claim data; (Crawford discloses that in some embodiments, the patient medical records or patient data can comprise insurance identification information and eligibility. The PDHP system and method can have features to prompt the patient for the data typically needed, such as…health insurance information, and medical history – paras 10, 26, and 31)
determining a member profile using the demographic information and the health information; (Crawford discloses that the personal digital health portfolio (“PDHP”) system and method that can store (determining a member profile) and retrieve health records (using the demographic information and the health information). In some embodiments, the PDHP system and method can include several components, including, but not limited to, 1) a database stored in a secure cloud storage, and/or 2) a patient smartphone or tablet application that can allow the patient to enter and retrieve records as well as to control settings allowing doctors, pharmacies and other health services to access certain components of the stored records (determining a member profile using the demographic information and the health information). – paras 22-23, 26)
selecting content for the member based on the member profile by identifying an application from a plurality of applications indicated in a content database; and providing the selected content to the selected computing device by installing the identified application on the computing device of the member; (Crawford discloses that when the doctor prescribes a medicine, the system can automatically add the prescription to the patient's medicine list in their database as a new medicine. In some embodiments, adding the medication as a new medicine can initiate automatic delivery of educational drug information to the patient, or a patient can be prompted to download an application related to patient education. Further, rather than selecting educational materials from an “info board area” the patient may instead be instructed to scan a QR code on their smart device for example and then the user may be prompted with useful patient educational material for reference while on-boarding the newly prescribed drug or device. Examiner notes that the application containing the appropriate educational content is essentially selected based on the patients newly prescribed medicine (based on the member profile) and is selected from a plurality of educational content, for example, from an “info board area” however in a digital manner via the user's smart device (by identifying an application from a plurality of applications indicated in a content database) and the patient is then prompted to download an application related to the appropriate patient education (providing the selected content to the selected computing device by installing the identified application on the computing device of the member). – paras 35, 108, 111)
identifying a health insurance company and/or a medical provider related to the member; (Crawford discloses that the personal digital health portfolio (“PDHP”) system may include both a patient device and a provider device where the provider device contains an application that allows access to the patients data. Examiner notes that this requires a connection between the patient and a respective healthcare provider. Further, the “entity” may be a doctor or an insurance provider. – paras 8, 22)
configuring one or more fields of the identified application for accessing one or more application programming interfaces ("APIs") of a server of the health insurance company and/or the medical provider related to the member; (Crawford discloses an application programming interface (API) in data communication with a processor of the computer system that can upload, download, or enable access (accessing one or more application programming interfaces ("APIs") of a server) of patient medical records or patient data stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The system 400 can manage the organization of data and data flow between the system and method application services, front end systems, and external (third party) computer systems and databases comprising or coupled to the system 400. Further, the digital gateway can host at least one patient account, and operate to transfer data between the patient account and one or more other accounts of the patient and/or accounts owned by a health care provider (e.g., such as a doctor) as well as provide access to patient data from the non-transitory computer readable medium (configuring one or more fields of the identified application) to at least one doctor, pharmacy, health service, or insurance company (the health insurance company and/or the medical provider related to the member). – abstract; paras 5, 8, 79-80; FIG. 4)
Crawford does not disclose the following limitations met by Schmidt:
a health risk assessment (Schmidt teaches that the consumer inputs data responsive to a health risk assessment and a personal preference survey. These data are analyzed by the integrator's computer system, for example by using algorithms to determine if the consumer is eligible for a disease prevention program (DPP). The methods also include processing data from the health risk assessment – paras 45 and 135)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a personal digital health portfolio system that receives demographic and health information, and then prompts a patient to download related educational information as disclosed by Crawford to incorporate a health risk assessment as input data as taught by Schmidt in order to overcome the lack of sufficient understanding of consumer preferences (see Schmidt para 7).
Crawford and Schmidt do not disclose the following limitations met by Niwa:
selecting a computing device from a repository of computing devices for the member; (Niwa teaches selecting a medically appropriate medical device (selecting a computing device – para 46) from an approved provider for the benefit of a patient, based on the examination and history of the patient. The medical device may be a hearing device or the like (para 13). – abstract; paras 3, 13, 35, 46; FIG. 2, item 216)
and causing the selected computing device to be packaged and shipped to the member. (Niwa teaches selecting the medical device for the patient based on the transmitted patient information and examination results and providing notification that the selected medical device is to be delivered to the patient (causing the selected computing device to – para 5). The device may be shipped to either the patient or the medical personnel (be packaged and shipped to the member – para 38). – abstract; paras 5, 36-38, 43; FIG. 2, item 218; FIG. 3, items 306-312)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a personal digital health portfolio system as disclosed by Crawford to incorporate selecting a particular medical device for a patient and shipping the device to the patient as taught by Niwa in order to efficiently, automatically, and reliably provide a medical device to a patient (see Niwa page 10, col. 9, lines 18-21).
Regarding Claim 9, this claim depends on claim 1, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Crawford does not disclose the following limitations met by Schmidt:
selecting a risk cohort group for the member from a plurality of risk cohort groups based on the determined member profile, wherein selecting the content is further based on the content being associated with the determined risk cohort group. (Schmidt teaches an integrator system that can implement segmentation as part of determining best fit DPPs and providers, which can involve analytic techniques to break down a heterogeneous population into smaller, homogeneous groups composed of individuals with similar needs, preferences, attitudes and behaviors. FIG. 11 is a schematic block diagram 1100 which illustrates a heterogeneous population broken down into smaller homogeneous sub-groups by an integrator system. More particularly, segmentation criteria 1102 may be used to filter data pertaining to heterogeneous population 1104, for example, population data residing in a medical or patient records database 1106 maintained by an integrator system, or by a health plan or a health care provider, which provide access to integrator system. Analytic techniques may be employed to break the population 1104 down into smaller, homogeneous groups 1108 (G1-GN), with each group G composed of individuals with similar personal preferences, such as, needs, preferences, attitudes and behaviors. The groups 1108 may be analyzed with variables from a broader behavioral database to which they are members (e.g., medical claims data) to isolate a set of segment-specific variables 1120 for each sub-group – paras 116, 128-129 and FIG. 11-12)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system for receiving demographic and health information and prompting a patient to download related educational information as disclosed by Crawford to incorporate a health risk assessment and an integrator system that can break down a heterogeneous population into smaller homogeneous sub-groups as taught by Schmidt in order to sub-group individuals with similar needs, attitude, preferences, and/or behaviors (see Schmidt para 129).
Regarding Claim 10, this claim depends on claim 1, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Crawford discloses the following:
health condition results from predictive modeling. (Crawford discloses a PDHP system that can be set up to auto-build and refine statistically-based models for predicting onset of symptoms or best treatment options for different diseases – para 99)
Crawford does not disclose the following limitations met by Schmidt:
wherein the health risk assessment includes at least one of underwriting data, health condition results from predictive modeling, or morbidity assessment information. (Schmidt teaches suitable segmentation criteria, some or all of which may be useful in the aforementioned segmentation process as well as defining personal profile for an individual candidate: Current co-morbid chronic health conditions (morbidity assessment information) – para 117, including the presented table)
While Crawford discloses a system that can be set up to auto-build and refine statistically-based models for predicting onset of symptoms or best treatment options for different diseases (health condition results from predictive modeling), Crawford does not disclose the health risk assessment or morbidity assessment information. However, Schmidt teaches these limitations not met by Crawford as described above. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system for receiving demographic and health information and prompting a patient to download related educational information as disclosed by Crawford to incorporate co-morbid chronic health condition information as taught by Schmidt in order to define a personal profile for an individual (see Schmidt para 117).
Regarding Claim 12, this claim depends on claim 1, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Crawford discloses the following:
wherein selecting the content includes selecting media content from a content database based on the member profile (Crawford discloses that the PDHP system can facilitate management of prescriptions by automatically adding a newly prescribed medicine to the patient’s medicine list in their database as a new medicine (based on a member profile). In some embodiments, adding the medication as a new medicine can initiate automatic delivery of educational drug information to the patient (selecting media content). For example, a patient can be prompted to download an application related to patient education. Further, rather than selecting educational materials from an “info board area” the patient may be instructed to scan a QR code for example and then the user may be prompted with useful patient educational material (selecting media content from a content database) for reference while on-boarding the newly prescribed drug or device. Examiner interprets the above Crawford citations to mean that the application is selected based on the patients newly prescribed medicine and is selected from a plurality of educational content, for example, from an “info board area” however in a digital manner. – paras 35, 108, 111)
and wherein providing the selected content includes providing the selected media content to the computing device of the member via a network. (Crawford discloses that in some embodiments, upon the swipe, the user can be prompted with useful patient educational material for reference while on-boarding the newly prescribed drug or device – paras 35, 108-109 and 111)
Regarding Claim 13, this claim depends on claim 1, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Crawford discloses the following:
generating a health recommendation for the member based on the member profile; (Crawford discloses that the application can issue a pop-up reminder to the patient or play a recording for the patient to remind them to do the exercise. – para 94)
and providing the health recommendation for display at the computing device of the member, wherein providing the selected content includes providing the health recommendation. (Crawford discloses that a task can be sent to the patient, which appears on their smartphone and/or tablet, prompting them to get the prescription filled and the application can issue a pop-up reminder to the patient or play a recording for the patient to remind them to do the exercise – paras 34 and 94)
Regarding Claim 16, this independent claim recites substantially similar limitations to those recited in claim 1 above; thus, the same rejection applies. Further, Crawford discloses the following limitations:
A system comprising: a content database; (Crawford discloses in some embodiments, the database of the PDHP system and method can store one or more personal digital health records. In some embodiments, the PDHP system and method can be configured to communicate with other applications and features of the smartphone and/or tablet that can be able to add personal health records to the patient database. – paras 23, 33)
and a health management server configured to: receive demographic information related to a member; (Crawford discloses the system 400 can comprise at least one computing device including at least one processor 432. In some embodiments, the at least one processor 432 can include a processor residing in or coupled to one or more server platforms- para 80)
load the selected content onto the selected computing device designated for the member by installing the identified application on the computing device of the member; (Crawford discloses that a patient can be prompted to download (load by installing the identified application on the computing device of the member) an application (the selected content) related to patient education. – paras 35, 111)
Regarding Claim 17, this claim depends on claim 16, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Crawford discloses the following:
wherein the health management server is configured to receive the health information from one or more medical servers via a network. (Crawford discloses that the system 400 can comprise at least one computing device including at least one processor 432. In some embodiments, the at least one processor 432 can include a processor residing in or coupled to one or more server platforms (medical servers). In some embodiments, input requests 120 can be received by the processor 105 (e.g., via signals transmitted from a digital gateway 125 of a user at a remote system or device, such as a handheld device like a smartphone or tablet, to the processor 105 via a network or internet connection). – paras 78, 80)
Regarding Claim 18, this claim depends on claim 16, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Crawford discloses the following:
a member profile database, wherein the health management server is configured to store the member profile of the member in the member profile database. (Crawford discloses that the PDHP system and method can be configured to communicate with other applications and features of the smartphone and/or tablet that can be able to add personal health records to the patient database (member profile database). In some embodiments of the invention, data stored in the database can include, but not be limited to, insurance identification information and eligibility, patient demographic information, name and address, self and family medical history, permission and release forms, list of drug and environmental allergies and sensitivities, healthcare directives and/or living will instructions, provider observational or diagnostic notes such as a SOAP (subjective, objective, assessment, and plan) note, and prescriptions (current, pending, past) with associated security tag (as described below). Further, the data stored in the database can include, but not be limited to, lab test results, such as blood tests, gait tests, EEG, ECG, respiration measurement, fitness records, such as heart-rate, weight, body fat, number of daily steps, sleep cycle, and data produced by biometric recording devices such as Fitbit, Inc., diet and nutritional journal medical images such as CT scans, MRI scans, x-rays, ultrasound, and completed questionnaires or surveys from providers, insurance, or other parties related to subjective measures of patient satisfaction, for example, surveys on patient satisfaction with the personal interactions at the doctor's office and perceived effectiveness of the prescribed treatment – paras 26, 33)
Regarding Claim 19, this independent claim recites substantially similar limitations to those recited in claim 1 above; thus, the same rejection applies. Further, Crawford discloses the following:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions (Crawford discloses computer-readable storage media, as used herein, refers to physical or tangible storage (as opposed to signals) and includes without limitation volatile and non-volatile, removable and non-removable storage media implemented in any method or technology for the tangible storage of information such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data – para 117)
that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing system to: (Crawford discloses a computer system including at least one processor – para 5)
and provide, via a network, the selected content to a computing device associated with the member. (Crawford discloses In some embodiments, input requests 120 can be received by the processor 105 (e.g., via signals transmitted from a digital gateway 125 of a user at a remote system or device, such as a handheld device like a smartphone or tablet, to the processor 105 via a network or internet connection) - paras 78, 81-84)
Claims 2-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al. (US 20180052958) in view of Schmidt et al. (US 20180075208), further in view of Niwa (US 20080004912) as applied to Claims 1, 8-10, 12-13 and 16-19 above, further in view of McClung et al. (US 20140074510).
Regarding Claim 2, this claim depends on claim 1, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Crawford does not teach the following limitations met by McClung:
determining a health index score for the member based on the health information and the demographic information, wherein determining the member profile includes determining the health index score. (McClung teaches that the computer may generate a[n] overall health score based on the risk score and the determined cost, which may then be transmitted for presentation to authorized end users. The personalized health score may be generated based on health care data of a user that has been aggregated from numerous independent and/or interrelated data sources. In one aspect, a method of the personalized health score generator may include receiving health related data of a user from a plurality of sources. Further, the method may include aggregating the health-related data received from the plurality of sources. Furthermore, the method may include, generating a health score for the user based on the aggregated health related data. In addition, the method may include providing access to the health score. – abstract and paras 5-7 and FIG. 3 item 310)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system for receiving demographic and health information as disclosed by Crawford to incorporate a method of the personalized health score generator as taught by McClung in order to generate an overall health score based on the risk score and aid in consolidating any appropriate health related data associated with an individual into a single score (see McClung abstract and para 5).
Regarding Claim 3 this claim depends on claim 2, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Crawford discloses the following:
wherein determining the health index score includes determining a weighted sum of values. (Crawford discloses in some embodiments, the PDHP system can be set up to auto-build and refine statistically-based models for predicting onset of symptoms or best treatment options for different diseases…In some embodiments, if the factors were used to create a model for predicting onset of symptoms, each factor can be given a different weight, with factors not predicting symptoms at all being weighted zero, and factors that reliably predict symptoms being weighted more strongly. In some embodiments, as time goes by, and more events are collected, the weightings can change and the model can produce a different outcome if used to predict whether symptoms are going to occur for a patient. – para 99)
Regarding Claim 4, this claim depends on claim 2, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Crawford and Schmidt do not teach the following limitations met by McClung:
wherein providing the selected content at the computing device includes providing the health index score for display at the computing device. (McClung teaches that the processor may be configured to transmit the health score for presentation by a computing device of either the user or another user – para 7 and FIG. 3 items 310 and 312)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system for receiving demographic and health information as disclosed by Crawford in view of Schmidt with a processor configured to transmit the health score for presentation by a computing device as taught by McClung in order to present the generated health score to a user (see McClung para 7).
Regarding Claim 5, this claim depends on claim 2, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Crawford and Schmidt do not teach the following limitations met by McClung:
updating the health index score in response to detecting an interaction by the member with the selected content, wherein determining the member profile includes updating the member profile based on the updated health index. (McClung teaches that an individual may subscribe for receiving updates on his or her own health score from the server 102. Accordingly, the server 102 may be configured to transmit the current health score to the end users 106a-n when there is a change in the health score when compared to a previous health score of the individual. Further, McClung teaches that the health score generator engine 310 includes a baseline score calculator engine 402 and a baseline score update engine 404 – paras 50, 70-71 and FIG. 4 item 404)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system for prompting patients by sending a task to complete as disclosed by Crawford in view of Schmidt to incorporate generating a health score and a baseline score update engine as taught by McClung in order to aid in consolidating any appropriate health related data associated with an individual into a single score (see McClung para 5).
Regarding Claim 6, this claim depends on claim 5, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Crawford and Schmidt do not teach the following limitations met by McClung:
further comprising: increasing the health index score in response to a determination that the member successfully completed a task associated with the selected content provided at the computing device. (McClung teaches that the health score generator engine 310 includes a baseline score calculator engine 402 and a baseline score update engine 404. For example, if a blood pressure measurement of an individual increases above a normal blood pressure level, the base risk score of the individual may be increased. Further, in said example if the blood pressure measurement of the individual decreases from a high value to a normal value, then the base risk score may be decreased. Further, the computer may generate a[n] overall health score based on the risk score and the determined cost. Further, the health score generator engine 310 may be configured to calculate the health score based on a combination of the modified base risk score and the cost associated with risk indicated by the modified base risk score. – abstract and paras 30, 50, 70-71, 77-79, 83 and FIG. 4 item 404)
While Crawford discloses that a task can be sent to the patient, which appears on their smartphone and/or tablet (see Crawford para 34), Crawford does not teach increasing the health index. However, McClung teaches these limitations not met by Crawford and Schmidt as described above. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system for prompting patients by sending a task to complete as disclosed by Crawford in view of Schmidt to incorporate generating a health score and a baseline score update engine as taught by McClung in order to aid in consolidating any appropriate health related data associated with an individual into a single score (see McClung para 5).
Regarding Claim 7, this claim depends on claim 5, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Crawford and Schmidt do not teach the following limitations met by McClung:
decreasing the health index score in response to a determination of failure to complete a task associated with the selected content provided at the computing device. (McClung teaches that the health score generator engine 310 includes a baseline score calculator engine 402 and a baseline score update engine 404. For example, if a blood pressure measurement of an individual increases above a normal blood pressure level, the base risk score of the individual may be increased. Further, in said example if the blood pressure measurement of the individual decreases from a high value to a normal value, then the base risk score may be decreased. Further, the computer may generate a[n] overall health score based on the risk score and the determined cost. Further, the health score generator engine 310 may be configured to calculate the health score based on a combination of the modified base risk score and the cost associated with risk indicated by the modified base risk score. – abstract and paras 50, 70-71, 77-79, 83 and FIG. 4 item 404)
While Crawford discloses a task can be sent to the patient, which appears on their smartphone and/or tablet (see Crawford para 34), Crawford does not teach decreasing the health index. However, McClung teaches these limitations not met by Crawford as described above. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system for prompting patients by sending a task to complete as disclosed by in view of Schmidt to incorporate generating a health score and a baseline score update engine as taught by McClung in order to aid in consolidating any appropriate health related data associated with an individual into a single score (see McClung para 5).
Regarding Claim 20, this claim depends on claim 19, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Additionally, it recites substantially similar limitations to those recited in claim 2 above; thus, the same rejection applies.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al. (US 20180052958) in view of Schmidt et al. (US 20180075208), further in view of Niwa (US 20080004912) as applied to Claims 1, 8-10, 12-13 and 16-19 above, and further in view of Holmes et al. (US 20160180050).
Regarding Claim 14, this claim depends on claim 1, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Crawford does not disclose the following limitations met by Holmes:
determining a health age for the member (Holmes teaches the following: A high risk of developing a health condition based on, for example, a positive family history of the health condition, can result in a calculated age (determining a health age) of a subject that is greater than a chronological age seen in a general population, for example, a calculated age greater than 100 years – paras 57 and 64)
based on the health information and the demographic information, (Holmes teaches a system that can calculate an age that corresponds to a subject's state of health based on health data – abstract, paras 57-58 and FIG. 4)
wherein the determined health age is different from an actual age of the member; (Holmes teaches that a subject can have a calculated age greater than the chronological age based on health data – paras 57 and 93)
and providing the health age for display at the computing device, wherein providing the selected content comprises providing the health age. (Holmes teaches a system that can display an age of the subject calculated as described herein based on the health data next to an image of the subject. – para 36)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified a system for receiving demographic and health information and prompting a patient to download related educational information as disclosed by Crawford in view of Schmidt with calculating the age of the subject which can be greater/less than the subject’s chronological age based on health data as taught by Holmes in order to calculate an age that corresponds to a subject's state of health (see Holmes abstract).
Regarding Claim 15, this claim depends on claim 14, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Crawford does not disclose the following limitations met by Holmes:
determining, based on the health information and the demographic information, that a health state of the member is better than a reference health state associated with an actual age of the member, wherein the health age is determined to be less than the actual age based on the determination that the health state of the member is better than the reference health state. (Holmes teaches that an age of the subject calculated by a system of the invention can be compared with, for example, the chronological age of the subject. The calculated age of the subject can be compared with, for example, the biological age of the subject. A low risk of developing a health condition based on, for example, no family history of the health condition, can result in a calculated age of a subject that is lower than a chronological age - paras 57 and 64)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified a system for receiving demographic and health information and prompting a patient to download related educational information as disclosed by Crawford to incorporate comparing a calculated age of a subject to a chronological age and determining that the calculated age of a subject is lower than a chronological age as taught by Holmes in order for a caregiver or a healthcare provider to make better and more informed decisions about the health of the subject (see Holmes para 67).
Relevant Prior Art of Record Not Currently Being Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Voskamp (US 10002373) discloses systems and methods for preloading content on a user device before a user requests the content from a web service provider.
Schechter (US 20080059224) discloses systems and methods for developing a comprehensive patient profile.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the drawing objection(s), the Applicant has amended the specification to overcome the drawing objections.
Regarding the Claim objection(s), the Applicant has amended claim 16 to overcome the basis of objection.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 101 to Claims 1-7, 9-10 and 12-20, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, and are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated in light of latest amendments. Applicant argues:
(a) Namely, the Office Action is silent about how the claim limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application. Merely underlying the claim elements and then making a subject matter eligibility conclusion is not a sufficient analysis. Here, the conclusory analysis provided in the Office Action does not establish the lack of a practical application or the integration of a judicial application into a practical application. Applicant respectfully submits that a preponderance of the evidence has not been provided in the Office Action to justify the rejection. For at least this reason, present Claims 1 to 7, 9, 10, and 12 to 20 are patentable. (p.11).
Regarding (a), Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem or where the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer. 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. As further explained in response to argument (b) below, Applicant’s identified problems are interpreted as not being rooted in technology. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application. Further, The technological environment of Applicant’s claim is a general-purpose computer (e.g., see Applicant’s Spec. Paras 33-34). Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any physical improvement to the functioning of the computer that results from the implementation of Applicant’s claim. There is no indication that the computer is made to reduce computing resources or network load, for example. In fact, the computer may be caused to operate less efficiently through the implementation of Applicant’s claimed invention; we do not know.
Examiner further notes that the identified additional elements (see updated 101 rejection above) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(b) Applicant's published specification disclose[s] that it can be cumbersome for a member to find contact information for their health insurance company and/or medical provider. The claims recite a practical application by identifying a health insurance company and/or a medical provider related to a member. Further, the claims recite configuring one or more fields of the application for accessing one or more APIs of a server of the health insurance company and/or the medical provider related to the member. The practical application constitutes how a computing device for a member is specially configured so that fields of applications are prepopulated with connectivity information to enable a member to more easily contact their health insurance company and/or their medical provider. The configuration of the fields of the application for accessing one or more APIs of a server provides a technology-based solution regarding the connectivity of a computing device. In view thereof, independent Claims 1, 16, and 19 recite an improvement in technology, as defined in MPEP Chapter 2105.05(a). (p. 11-12; emphasis original).
Regarding (b), Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states "the word 'improvements' in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B." see also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). Here there is no improvement to the computer nor is there an improvement to another technology. Because neither type of improvement is present in the claims, an improvement to technology is not present and there is no practical application.
Further, the Applicant’s argued problem of finding contact information for their health insurance company and/or medical provider are interpreted as not being rooted in technology. The problems are not caused by nor related to computer technology and the claims do not provide any limitations that may be interpreted as technical improvements to computer technology. The claimed invention is using a computer as a tool and any improvement present is an improvement to the abstract idea of, to paraphrase, providing appropriate content for patients.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 103 to Claims 1-7, 9-10 and 12-20, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated in light of latest amendments. Applicant argues:
(c) The Office Action at pages 29 and 30 relies on Crawford to disclose the selection and configuration of an application on a selected computing device. However, in contrast to independent Claims 1, 16, and 19, Crawford discloses delivery of medication content to a patient. (See Crawford, par. [0035]). Crawford is silent about configuring one or more fields of an identified application for accessing one or more application programming interfaces ("APIs") of a server of a health insurance company and/or a medical provider related to the member. Crawford instead generally discloses installing an application on a patient's device. Crawford fails to consider the challenges addressed by the claims regarding a patient configuring an application because Crawford instead contemplates providing only contact that is not specific to a health insurance company and/or a medical provider related to a patient. Crawford therefore fails to disclose configuring one or more fields of an identified application for accessing one or more APIs of a health insurance company and/or a medical provider related to the member. For at least this reason, independent Claims 1, 16, and 19 and dependent Claims 7 to 10, 12, 13, 17, and 18 are accordingly patentable over any combination of Crawford, Schmidt, and Niwa. (p. 9-10).
Regarding (c), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites “configuring one or more fields of the identified application for accessing one or more application programming interfaces ("APIs") of a server of the health insurance company and/or the medical provider related to the member;”. Crawford discloses an application programming interface (API) in data communication with a processor of the computer system that can upload, download, or enable access to patient data (see abstract; paras 5, 8). The system manages data flow between entities such as patients, doctors and health insurance providers (see paras 8 and 79) by accessing, for example, databases and servers (para 80 and fig. 4). Examiner notes that managing data flow between patient and doctor for example, requires a connection between the patient and a respective healthcare provider. Therefore, Crawford discloses the argued limitations. See updated rejection above.
(d) McClung and Holmes fail to cure the above-discussed deficiencies of Crawford, Schmidt, and Niwa regarding Claims 1, 16, and 19. In view thereof, Claims 2 to 7, 14, 15, and 20 are patentable for the reasons discussed in conjunction with Claims 1, 16, and 19, and for the additional features recited in these claims. (p. 10).
Regarding (d), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on response to arguments above, claim 1 is unpatentable and therefore similar independent claims 16 and 19, as well as all claims depending therefrom, are unpatentable according to the same rationale.
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 KIMBERLY VANDER WOUDE whose telephone number is (703)756-4684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9171. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/K.E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681