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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 07/28/2026. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 19 are amended, claims 22-27 are added, claims 3, 4, 10, 14, 20, and 21 are cancelled, and claim 18 was previously cancelled. Claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19, and 22-27 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “identify individuals of the population of individuals with the serious illness who are in an inpatient setting or in an emergency room for the serious illness based on real-time notifications and medical claims data of the healthcare data from the plurality of network-based databases” is not supported by the specification. The Examiner points to paragraph [0058] of the specification which states, in part, “For example, method 500 identifies persons in the serious illness population who are currently in crisis by identifying persons who are currently in an inpatient setting or in an emergency room for their serious illness. In some examples, method 500 may identify such persons currently in crisis due to a serious illness based on a combination of real-time notifications (e.g., real-time admission, discharge, and transfer data) and medical claims data. ” Based on this, it is apparent that the identification of patients that are in crisis is based on identifying persons who are currently in an inpatient setting or in an emergency room, or based on the real-time notifications and medical claims data. Further, there is no language indicating how it is determined that individuals are in an inpatient setting or in an emergency room.
Claims 9, 11-13 are rejected as well since they inherit the limitations of independent claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “wherein the executable program is further configured to cause the computer processor to calculate event scores for the individual based on ongoing health events and historical health events, and calculate the total serious illness score based on the event scores and the functional scores, and wherein a portion of the event scores based on the historical health events does not decrease” does not appear to be supported by the specification. There is no language regarding event scores decreasing.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “automatically assigning, with a queue module of the processor, the individual to a clinical queue of a plurality of clinical queues including a current utilization queue, an early change queue, a sustained illness queue, and a stable queue, wherein automatically assigning is based on utilization of healthcare services, wherein the utilization of healthcare services is based on the real-time notifications, the medical claims, and the electronic health records for the individual, and based on comparison of the total serious illness score to a score threshold and comparison of the serious illness score change to a delta threshold to indicate a current risk level of the individual, and automatically updating the clinical queue to include the individual, and wherein each clinical queue comprises a list of individuals prioritized for healthcare intervention” is indefinite. It is indefinite because the grammatical relationship between “automatically assigning”, “utilization of healthcare services”, and “comparison of the total serious illness score to a score threshold and comparison of the serious illness score change to a delta threshold” is unclear.
The claim recites that “automatically assigning is based on utilization of healthcare services”. The claim then recites that “the utilization of healthcare services is based on the real-time notifications, the medical claims, and the electronic health records for the individual”. However, the subsequent phrase “and based on comparison of the total serious illness score…” does not clearly identify what recited operation the phrase “based on comparison” modifies. In particular, it is unclear whether the score comparisons are 1) an additional basis for automatically assigning the individual to the clinical queue; 2) an additional basis for evaluating the utilization of healthcare services; or 3) a separate operation used to indicate the current risk level of the individual.
Thus, the claim does not provide a reasonably clear boundary as to what information is required to cause the automatic assignment of the individual to a particular clinical queue. Because at least the scope of the “automatically assigning” limitation depends upon an uncertain grammatical relationship between the utilization-based evaluation and the score comparisons, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised with reasonable certainty of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “identify individuals of the population of individuals with a serious illness who are in an inpatient setting or in an emergency room for the serious illness based on real-time notifications and medical claims data of the healthcare data from the plurality of network-based databases, wherein the real-time notifications include real-time admission, discharge, and transfer data” is indefinite. Medical claims are generated after a patient visit, and it is unclear as to how a document generated after a patient’s visit may be used to identify the patient currently being in an inpatient setting or emergency room.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “convert the healthcare data from the plurality of network-based databases including one or more claim lines of the medical claims to functional scores of a plurality of categories for individuals of the population of individuals with the serious illness who are not in the inpatient setting or in the emergency room, wherein the functional scores characterize a health status of each individual of the population of individuals” is indefinite. As stated above, it is unclear as to how a document generated after a patient’s visit may be used to identify the patient currently being in an inpatient setting or emergency room. Thus, it is unclear how patients not currently in an inpatient setting or emergency room may be identified.
Dependent claims 9 and 11-13 are rejected as well because they inherit the limitation of the independent claims.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “wherein the executable program is further configured to cause the computer processor to calculate event scores for the individual based on ongoing health events and historical health events, and calculate the total serious illness score based on the event scores and the functional scores, and wherein a portion of the event scores based on the historical health events does not decrease” is indefinite. It is unclear as to what entails a portion of the event scores decreasing. For example, it is unclear if the decreasing is meant to be in relation to each other, or if a particular event score is to remain constant. For sake of examination, the Examiner shall assume the latter.
The terms “ambulation”, “conscious level”, “activity and evidence of disease”, “food intake”, “self-care ability”, and “obstacles to care” in claim 13 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, while the “self-care function” is described as “a measure of an ability for the person to care for themselves without assistances”, there is no description of what is considered as “care” or “assistance”.
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 1-2, 5-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19, and 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent Claim 22 recites (additional limitations crossed out):
A method, comprising:
aggregating healthcare data including medical claims, real-time notifications, electronic health records, and one or more of pharmacy claims, and laboratory data, each forming a type of healthcare data related to each individual of a population of individuals, wherein the healthcare data is from a plurality of disparate data sources and is aggregated for use by a serious illness score module;
converting, individual of the population of individuals, wherein the functional scores are not medical claim lines and characterize a health status of each individual;
calculating,
retrieving,
automatically assigning,
wherein the individual is placed in the current utilization queue based on utilization of healthcare services indicating the individual experienced medical crisis in the last thirty days, in the early change queue in response to a utilization claim within a time duration, the total serious illness score for the individual above the score threshold and the serious illness score change for the individual over the delta threshold, in the sustained illness queue in response to the utilization claim within the time duration, the total serious illness score for the individual above the score threshold and the serious illness score change for the individual under the delta threshold, and in the stable queue in response to the utilization claim within the time duration, the total serious illness score for the individual below the score threshold and the serious illness score change for the individual under the delta threshold;
automatically generating,
The above limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by the human mind or with pen and paper, as well as the management of personal behaviors. That is, other than reciting the utilization of a “processor”, “modules” and “network-based databases”, nothing precludes the steps from being performed with pen and paper, or as being described as the management of personal behavior. For example, an individual may mentally store healthcare data, convert the data to scores, calculate a total serious illness score, determine a serious illness score change based on historical serious illness scores, assign an individual to a queue based on the score to update the queue, and generate a message comprising the queue, which describes a process that may be performed with pen and paper, as well as describes the management of personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers activities that may be performed mentally or with pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the management of personal behavior, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of a “processor”, “modules” and “network-based databases” to perform the steps. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (see at least Paras. [0017] and [0027]) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. The claims further recite “transmitting, with the processor, the message to at least one client device associated with a clinician to allow the clinician to review the updated clinical queue and provide recommendations for treatment and prioritize interventions based on the updated clinical queue”. However, this is merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements 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 are therefore still directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a “processor”, “modules”, and “network-based databases” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional limitation of “transmitting, with the processor, the message to at least one client device associated with a clinician to allow the clinician to review the updated clinical queue and provide recommendations for treatment and prioritize interventions based on the updated clinical queue” is merely a conventional function as evidenced by at least Symantec which featured receiving or transmitting data over a network. The performance of conventional functions by generic computers does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Claim 1 recites limitations similar to those of claim 22 and is therefore also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 8 recites (additional limitations crossed out):
aggregate healthcare data including medical claims, real-time notifications, electronic health records, and one or more of pharmacy claims, and laboratory data, each forming a type of healthcare data related to each individual of a population of individuals, wherein the healthcare data is from a plurality of disparate data sources and is aggregated
identify individuals of the population with a serious illness based on diagnosis codes in medical claims data of the healthcare data
identify individuals of the population of individuals with the serious illness who are in an inpatient setting or in an emergency room for the serious illness based on real-time notifications and medical claims data of the healthcare data
convert the healthcare data from the plurality of network-based databases including one or more claim lines of the medical claims to functional scores of a plurality of categories for each individuals of the population of individuals with the serious illness who are not in the inpatient setting or in the emergency room, wherein the functional scores characterize a health status of each individual of the population of individuals;
calculate a total serious illness score for each the individuals with the serious illness who are not in the inpatient setting or in the emergency room based on the functional scores and store the total serious illness score at a serious illness score database;
retrieve the total serious illness score and historical serious illness scores for an individual of the population of individuals with a serious illness who are not in the inpatient setting or in the emergency room from the serious illness score database in response to a request for a serious illness assessment of the individual, and determine serious illness score changes and trends in the serious illness score changes for the individual based on the total serious illness score and historical serious illness scores for the individual;
automatically assign the individual to a clinical queue of a plurality of clinical queues based on a determined risk of the individual indicated by the serious illness score changes and the total serious illness score, and automatically update the clinical queue to include the individual, wherein each clinical queue comprises a list of individuals prioritized for healthcare intervention;
automatically generate a message comprising the updated clinical queue; and
.
The above limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by the human mind or with pen and paper, as well as the management of personal behaviors. That is, other than reciting the utilization of a “computer-readable storage medium”, a “processor”, and “network-based databases”, nothing precludes the steps from being performed with pen and paper, or as being described as the management of personal behavior. For example, an individual may mentally store healthcare data, convert the data to scores, identify individuals with a serious illness based on diagnosis codes, identify individuals with a serious illness who are in crisis, calculate a total serious illness score, determine a serious illness score change based on historical serious illness scores, assign an individual to a queue based on the score to update the queue, and generate a message comprising the queue, which describes a process that may be performed with pen and paper, as well as describes the management of personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers activities that may be performed mentally or with pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the management of personal behavior, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of a “computer-readable storage medium”, a “processor”, and “network-based databases” to perform the steps. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (see at least Paras. [0017] and [0027]) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. The claims further recite “transmit the message to at least one client device associated with a clinician to allow the clinician to review the updated clinical queue and provide recommendations for and prioritize treatment of the individual based on the updated clinical queue”. However, this is merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements 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 are therefore still directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a “computer-readable storage medium”, a “processor”, and “network-based databases” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional limitation of “transmit the message to at least one client device associated with a clinician to allow the clinician to review the updated clinical queue and provide recommendations for and prioritize treatment of the individual based on the updated clinical queue” is merely a conventional function as evidenced by at least Symantec which featured receiving or transmitting data over a network. The performance of conventional functions by generic computers does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Independent claim 15 recites (additional limitations crossed out):
A system, comprising:
aggregate healthcare data including medical claims, real-time notifications, electronic health records, pharmacy claims, and laboratory data, each forming a type of healthcare data related to each individual of a population of individuals, wherein the healthcare data is from a plurality of disparate data sources and is aggregated into a plurality of network-based databases based on the type of healthcare data for use by a serious illness score module;
in response to receiving new and/or updated healthcare data relating to an individual convert the healthcare data from the plurality of network-based databases, including one or more claim lines of the medical claims to functional scores of a plurality of categories for the individual of the population of individuals to identify contributing factors to declining health status;
calculate a total serious illness score for the individual based on the functional scores and store the total serious illness score
retrieve the total serious illness score and historical serious illness scores for the individual of the population of individuals
automatically assign the individual to a clinical queue of a plurality of clinical queues based on the serious illness score change, the total serious illness score, and utilization of healthcare services, wherein the utilization of healthcare services is evaluated based on one or more of the real-time notifications, the medical claims, and the electronic health records for the individual, and automatically update the clinical queue to include the individual, and wherein each clinical queue comprises a list of individuals prioritized for healthcare intervention;
automatically generate a message comprising the updated clinical queue; and
The above limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by the human mind or with pen and paper, as well as the management of personal behaviors. That is, other than reciting the utilization of a “server”, “client devices”, and “network-based databases”, nothing precludes the steps from being performed with pen and paper, or as being described as the management of personal behavior. For example, an individual may mentally store healthcare data, convert the data to scores, calculate a total serious illness score, determine a serious illness score change based on historical serious illness scores, assign an individual to a queue based on the score to update the queue, and generate a message comprising the queue, which describes a process that may be performed with pen and paper, as well as describes the management of personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers activities that may be performed mentally or with pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the management of personal behavior, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of a “server”, “client devices”, and “network-based databases” to perform the steps. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (see at least Paras. [0017] and [0027]) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. The claims further recite “transmit the message to the client device to allow the clinician to review the updated clinical queue and provide prioritized recommendations for treatment of the individual based on the updated clinical queue”. However, this is merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements 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 are therefore still directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a “server”, “client devices”, and “network-based databases” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional limitation of “transmit the message to the client device to allow the clinician to review the updated clinical queue and provide prioritized recommendations for treatment of the individual based on the updated clinical queue” is merely a conventional function as evidenced by at least Symantec which featured receiving or transmitting data over a network. The performance of conventional functions by generic computers does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Claims 2-7 and 21 are dependent on claim 1, and include all the limitations of claim 1. Claims 9-14 and 27 are dependent on claim 8, and include all the limitations of claim 8. Claims 16-17, and 19-20 are dependent on claim 15, and include all the limitations of claim 15. Claims 23-26 are dependent on claim 22, and include all the limitations of claim 22. Therefore, they are also found to be directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims merely serve to further narrow the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and are not found to be patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelson (US 2015/0332012) in view of Greenblatt (US 11,663,669), Stettin (US 10,147,504), Hong (US 2019/0259499), and Aagesen (US 2016/0125168.
Regarding claim 1, Edelson discloses A method, comprising:
aggregating healthcare data including medical claims, real-time notifications, electronic health records, and one or more of pharmacy claims, and laboratory data, each forming a type of healthcare data related to each individual of a population of individuals, wherein the healthcare data is from a plurality of disparate data sources and is aggregated into a plurality of network-based databases based on the type of healthcare data for use by a serious illness score module;. Edelson discloses the storage of electronic health records (EHR) in storage devices, wherein the data in the EHR’s include at least vital signs, patient age, whether they had previously been in an ICU during hospitalization, and mental status (i.e., based on the type of healthcare data) (Paras. [0084], [0143]). However, Edelson does not explicitly disclose the electronic health records being aggregated into a plurality of network-based databases based on the type of healthcare data. Greenblatt teaches the storage of different types of data in separate databases (see at least Col. 10, Lines 35-44) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Edelson to utilize the teachings of Greenblatt since it may improve the performance speed of each database due to storing less data.
Edelson does not fully disclose converting, with a processor configured with a serious illness score module, the healthcare data from the plurality of network-based databases including one or more medical claims of the medical claims to functional scores of a plurality of categories for each individual of the population of individuals, wherein the functional scores are not medical claim lines and characterize a health status of an individual. Edelson discloses assigning a score to one or more of respiratory rate, heart rate, diastolic blood pressure, age, quantitative mental status, non-subjective mental stats, and/or pulse pressure (Para. [0061]). However, Edelson does not explicitly disclose the conversion of medical claim lines to functional scores. Stettin discloses the calculation of patient-level risk scores based on medical claims of individuals (see at least Col. 11, Lines 7-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Edelson to utilize the teachings of Stettin since both Edelson and Stettin are in the same field of endeavor (i.e., determination of risk scores), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Edelson also discloses calculating, with the processor, a total serious illness score for each individual based on the functional scores and storing the total serious illness score at a serious illness score database of the serious illness score module; Edelson discloses calculations an aggregated score based on the assigned scores (Para. [0062]).
Edelson also discloses retrieving, with the processor, the total serious illness score and historical serious illness scores for an individual of the population of individuals from the serious illness score database, in response to a request for a serious illness assessment of the individual, and determining a serious illness score change for the individual based on the total serious illness score and historical serious illness scores for the individual. Edelson discloses comparing sequences of aggregate scores, as well as identifying trends associated with the aggregated scores (Para. [0023], [0025], and Para. [0058]).
Edelson does not explicitly disclose:
automatically assigning, with a queue module of the processor, the individual to a clinical queue of a plurality of clinical queues including a current utilization queue, an early change queue, a sustained illness queue, and a stable queue, wherein automatically assigning is based on utilization of healthcare services, …, and based on comparison of the total serious illness score to a score threshold and comparison of the serious illness score change to a delta threshold to indicate a current risk level of the individual, and automatically updating the clinical queue to include the individual, and wherein each clinical queue comprises a list of individuals prioritized for healthcare intervention
automatically generating, with the queue module, a message comprising the updated clinical queue; and
transmitting, with the processor, the message to at least one client device associated with a clinician to allow the clinician to review the updated clinical queue and provide recommendations
In light of the 112 rejection above, Hong teaches this. Hong teaches a system that alerts healthcare practitioners to the number of patients being treated (i.e., utilization of healthcare services) to at least a “low risk” “medium risk” or “high risk” category based on a score exceeding a threshold amount of change (see at least Paras. [0079]- [0081], [0087]), as well as an “insufficient data” category (Para. [0082]). However, while Hong discloses a plurality of categories (i.e., queues), Hong does not explicitly disclose the categories including a current utilization queue, an early change queue, a sustained illness queue, and a stable queue . The Examiner asserts that the plurality of clinical queues including a current utilization queue, an early change queue, a sustained illness queue, and a stable queue is simply a label for the plurality of queues and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the particular title of a queue) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method (i.e., assigning patients to a queue) does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the categories of Hong include a current utilization queue, an early change queue, a sustained illness queue, and a stable queue because the title of the queue/category does not functionally alter or relate to the steps of the method and merely labeling the queue/list differently from that of the prior art does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Edelson, Greenblatt, and Stettin to utilize the teachings of Hong since it may serve to determine the prioritization of treatment for patients.
Edelson does not disclose wherein the utilization of healthcare services is evaluated based on the real-time notifications, the medical claims, and the electronic health records for the individual. In light of the 112 rejection, Aagesen teaches this. Aagesen teaches the categorization of a patient into a category (Para. [0020]), wherein the categorization is based at least in part on health data (i.e., real-time notifications, the medical claims, the electronic health records), and wherein the health data is used to determine an amount of health system utilization by the patient (See at least Para. [0019]-[0020]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Edelson to utilize the teachings of Aagesen since both Edelson and Aagesen are in the same field of endeavor (i.e., risk stratification of patients), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 2, Edelson does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein converting the healthcare data to the functional scores of the plurality of categories comprises processing medical claims for the population of individuals associated with a time duration to identify one or more claim lines, and the method further comprising generating the functional scores of the plurality of categories based on the one or more claim lines according to a model configured to convert the one or more claim lines to the functional scores of the categories. Stettin discloses the calculation of patient-level risk scores based on medical claims of individuals (see at least Col. 11, Lines 7-20). Further, while Edelson discloses the calculation of a score based on a model (Para. [0059]), Edelson does not disclose the score being based on claim lines. Stettin discloses the calculation of patient-level risk scores based on medical claims of individuals (see at least Col. 11, Lines 7-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Edelson to utilize the teachings of Stettin since both Edelson and Stettin are in the same field of endeavor (i.e., determination of risk scores), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 6, Edelson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of categories includes ambulation, conscious level, activity and evidence of disease, food intake, self-care ability, and obstacles to care, and wherein ambulation comprises the ability of the individual to walk without assistance, conscious level is a conscious level of the individual, activity and evidence of disease is the ability of the individual to perform daily activities, food intake is a measure of the food intake ability of the individual, self-care ability is the ability of the individual to care for themselves without assistance, and the obstacles to care a measure of obstacle to care for the individual, and wherein determining the serious illness score change comprises measuring changes in each functional score of the functional scores over time for the individual. Edelson discloses the calculation of a score based on one or more of patient's respiratory rate, heart rate, diastolic blood pressure, demographics ( e.g., age), and/or laboratory data ( e.g., potassium, anion gap, platelet count) quantitative mental status, non-subjective mental status (with respect to a healthcare provider), and/or pulse pressure (Para. [0061]). Edelson also discloses comparing sequences of aggregate scores (Para. [0058]). However, Edelson does not explicitly state the particular categories stated in the claim. The Examiner asserts that the cited elements are simply labels for the categories and add little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the particular categories) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method (i.e., calculating an illness score) does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the data used by Edelson be comprised of ambulation, conscious level, activity and evidence of disease, food intake, self-care ability, and obstacles to care because the type of data does not functionally alter or relate to the steps of the method and merely labeling the information differently from that of the prior art does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15 Edelson partially discloses:
in response to receiving new and/or updated healthcare data relating to an individual convert the healthcare data from the plurality of network-based databases, including one or more claim lines of the medical claims to functional scores of a plurality of categories for the individual of the population of individuals to identify contributing factors to declining health status Edelson discloses assigning a score to one or more of respiratory rate, heart rate, diastolic blood pressure, age, quantitative mental status, non-subjective mental stats, and/or pulse pressure, wherein the model to determine the score is updated as new information is added (Paras. [0059], and [0061]). However, Edelson does not explicitly disclose the conversion of medical claim lines to functional scores. Stettin discloses the calculation of patient-level risk scores based on medical claims of individuals (see at least Col. 11, Lines 7-20). The Examiner notes that the language “…to identify contributing factors to declining health status” is a statement of intended use and fails to result in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Edelson to utilize the teachings of Stettin since both Edelson and Stettin are in the same field of endeavor (i.e., determination of risk scores), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Edelson does disclose retrieve the total serious illness score and historical serious illness scores for the individual of the population of individuals from the serious illness score database in response to receiving new and/or updated healthcare data relating to the individual, and determine a serious illness score change for the individual based on the total serious illness score and historical serious illness scores for the individual, wherein the serious illness score change is determined by measuring changes in each functional score of the functional scores over time for the individual. Edelson discloses comparing sequences of aggregate scores, as well as identifying trends associated with the aggregated scores, wherein the aggregate scores are at least based upon weighting values determined by a model that is updated as new information is added (Para. [0023], [0025], and Paras. [0058]-[0059]).
The remaining limitations of claim 15 are similar to those of claims 1 and 6 and are therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 16 features limitations similar to those of claims 1, 2, and 15 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale. The Examiner notes that “..cause the processor of the server to assign the individual to a position within the clinical queue based on the total serious illness score” does not differentiate from at least claims 1’s limitation “automatically assigning… the individual to a clinical queue…based on comparison of the serious illness score…”.
Claim 17 features limitations similar to those of claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelson (US 2015/0332012) in view of Greenblatt (US 11,663,669), Stettin (US 10,147,504), and Hong (US 2019/0259499), and in further view of Underwood (US 2010/0169124)
Regarding claim 5, Edelson, Greenblatt, Stettin, and Hong do not explicitly disclose The method of claim 1, further comprising calculating event scores for the individual based on ongoing health events indicating a changing health status over time and historical health events including a count of admissions to critical care, and calculating the total serious illness score based on a sum of the event scores and the functional scores. See Underwood, Para. [0037] – “In one preferred embodiment, the action score is an integer that is generated by adding several values, each of which represents the intervention candidate's consumption of a different health care service. A first component of the action score is a value that represents a count of unique specialty types encountered in medical claims or encounters for the intervention candidate over the last 12 months. The second component is a value that represents the number of inpatient admissions for the intervention candidate over the last 12 months. The third component is a value that represents the number of diseases or conditions for which the candidate sought treatment. A fourth component is a value that represents the number of unique drug prescriptions, as determined, for example, at the generic drug name level. A fifth component is a value that represents the sum of allowed amounts for all medical claims incurred over the prior six (6) months. A sixth, and final component in a preferred embodiment, is the number of emergency room visits for which the intervention candidate was not admitted.” Underwood discloses the calculation of a score based on at least the summation of a number of diseases or conditions for which a candidate sought treatment (i.e., functional score) and a number of emergency room visits (i.e., event score) (Para. [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Edelson, Greenblatt, Stettin, and Hong to utilize the teachings of Underwood since it may be used to determine the relative desirability of an intervention in the health care regimen of a patient (Para. [0036])
Regarding claim 19, Edelson, Greenblatt, Stettin, and Hong do not explicitly disclose The system of claim 15, wherein the server is further configured with executable instructions in non-transitory memory of the server that when executed cause the processor of the server to calculate event scores for the individual based on ongoing health events and historical health events, and calculate the total serious illness score based on the event scores and the functional scores, and wherein a portion of the event scores based on the historical health events does not decrease.. See Underwood, Para. [0037] – “In one preferred embodiment, the action score is an integer that is generated by adding several values, each of which represents the intervention candidate's consumption of a different health care service. A first component of the action score is a value that represents a count of unique specialty types encountered in medical claims or encounters for the intervention candidate over the last 12 months. The second component is a value that represents the number of inpatient admissions for the intervention candidate over the last 12 months. The third component is a value that represents the number of diseases or conditions for which the candidate sought treatment. A fourth component is a value that represents the number of unique drug prescriptions, as determined, for example, at the generic drug name level. A fifth component is a value that represents the sum of allowed amounts for all medical claims incurred over the prior six (6) months. A sixth, and final component in a preferred embodiment, is the number of emergency room visits for which the intervention candidate was not admitted.” Underwood discloses the calculation of a score based on at least the summation of a number of diseases or conditions for which a candidate sought treatment (i.e., functional score) and a number of emergency room visits (i.e., event score) (Para. [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Edelson, Greenblatt, Stettin, and Hong to utilize the teachings of Underwood since it may be used to determine the relative desirability of an intervention in the health care regimen of a patient (Para. [0036])
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelson (US 2015/0332012) in view of Greenblatt (US 11,663,669), Stettin (US 10,147,504), Hong (US 2019/0259499), and Aagesen (US 2016/0125168 and in further view of Amarasingham (US 2015/0213223)
Regarding claim 7, Edelson, Greenblatt, Stettin, Hong, and Aagesen do not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein automatically updating the clinical queue to include the individual based on the serious illness score change and the total serious illness score includes assigning the individual to a position within the clinical queue based on the total serious illness score. Amarasingham teaches the ranking of patients according to risk scores, providing a patient list based on the risk scores (see at least Para. [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Edelson to utilize the teachings of Amarasingham since it would allow for the identification of patients with the highest risk for particular illnesses (Para. [0062]).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelson (US 2015/0332012) in view of Greenblatt (US 11,663,669), Stettin (US 10,147,504), Hong (US 2019/0259499), and Ika (US 2018/0322946)
Regarding claim 8, Edelson discloses A computer-readable storage medium including an executable program stored thereon, the executable program configured to cause a computer processor to:
aggregate healthcare data including medical claims and one or more of pharmacy claims, real-time notifications, laboratory data, and electronic health records, each forming a type of healthcare data related to each individual of a population of individuals, wherein the healthcare data is from a plurality of disparate data sources and is aggregated into a plurality of network-based databases based on the type of healthcare data for use by a serious illness score module. Edelson discloses the storage of electronic health records (EHR) in storage devices, wherein the data in the EHR’s include at least vital signs, patient age, whether they had previously been in an ICU during hospitalization, and mental status (i.e., based on the type of healthcare data) (Paras. [0084], [0143]). However, Edelson does not explicitly disclose the electronic health records being aggregated into a plurality of network-based databases based on the type of healthcare data. Greenblatt teaches the storage of different types of data in separate databases (see at least Col. 10, Lines 35-44) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Edelson to utilize the teachings of Greenblatt since it may improve the performance speed of each database due to storing less data.
Edelson does not disclose identify individuals of the population with a serious illness based on diagnosis codes in medical claims data of the healthcare data from the plurality of network- based databases, wherein the diagnosis codes are associated with one or more of organ failure, a neurologic or frailty disease, and cancer. Ika teaches determining an overall patient health status of a patient by using medical condition diagnosis codes wherein the medical condition includes at least coronary artery disease (Paras. [0037] and [0069], Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Edelson and Greenblatt to utilize the teachings of Ika since it may provide a care giver with the urgency of care required (Para. [0037]).
Edelson does not explicitly disclose identify individuals of the population of individuals with a serious illness who are in an inpatient setting or in an emergency room for the serious illness based on real-time notifications and medical claims data of the healthcare data from the plurality of network-based databases, wherein the real-time notifications include real-time admission, discharge, and transfer data. In light of the 112 rejections above, Ika teaches this. Ika teaches the determination of a score, to be included in a healthcare actionable intelligence report, that indicates the urgency of care required by a patient (i.e., patient in crisis), wherein the score is based at least on medical diagnosis codes (i.e., medical claims data), and wherein the report is generated in response to a healthcare eligibility request (i.e. real-time notification) from a requesting entity that includes urgent care centers (see at least Para. [0007], [0029], [0031], [0037]-[0038], and [0045]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Edelson and Greenblatt to utilize the teachings of Ika since it may provide a care giver with the urgency of care required (Para. [0037]).
In light of the 112 rejections above, Edelson partially discloses convert the healthcare data from the plurality of network-based databases including one or more claim lines of the medical claims to functional scores of a plurality of categories for each individuals of the population of individuals with a serious illness who are not in crisis, wherein the functional scores characterize a health status of each individual of the population of individuals. Edelson discloses assigning a score to one or more of respiratory rate, heart rate, diastolic blood pressure, age, quantitative mental status, non-subjective mental stats, and/or pulse pressure (Para. [0061]). However, Edelson does not explicitly disclose the conversion of medical claim lines to functional scores. Stettin discloses the calculation of patient-level risk scores based on medical claims of individuals (see at least Col. 11, Lines 7-20) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Edelson to utilize the teachings of Stettin since both Edelson and Stettin are in the same field of endeavor (i.e., determination of risk scores), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Edelson discloses calculate a total serious illness score for each the individuals with a serious illness who are not in crisis based on the functional scores and store the total serious illness score at a serious illness score database. Edelson discloses calculating an aggregated score based on the assigned scores (Para. [0062]).
retrieve the total serious illness score and historical serious illness scores for an individual of the population of individuals with a serious illness who are not in crisis from the serious illness score database in response to a request for a serious illness assessment of the individual, and determine serious illness score changes and trends in the serious illness score changes for the individual based on the total serious illness score and historical serious illness scores for the individual. Edelson discloses comparing sequences of aggregate scores, as well as identifying trends associated with the aggregated scores (Para. [0023], [0025], and Para. [0058]).
Edelson does not explicitly disclose:
automatically assign the individual to a clinical queue of a plurality of clinical queues based on a determined risk of the individual indicated by the serious illness score changes and the total serious illness score, and automatically update the clinical queue to include the individual, wherein each clinical queue comprises a list of individuals prioritized for healthcare intervention;
automatically generate a message comprising the updated clinical queue; and
transmit the message to at least one client device associated with a clinician to allow the clinician to review the updated clinical queue and provide recommendations for and prioritize treatment of the individual based on the updated clinical queue
Hong teaches a system that alerts healthcare practitioners to the number of patients being treated (i.e., utilization of healthcare services) to at least a “low risk” “medium risk” or “high risk” category based on a score exceeding a threshold amount of change (see at least Paras. [0079]- [0081], [0087]). However, while Hong discloses a plurality of categories (i.e., queues), Hong does not explicitly disclose the categories including a current utilization queue, an early change queue, a sustained illness queue, and a stable queue . The Examiner asserts that the plurality of clinical queues including a current utilization queue, an early change queue, a sustained illness queue, and a stable queue is simply a label for the plurality of queues and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the particular title of a queue) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method (i.e., assigning patients to a queue) does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the categories of Hong include a current utilization queue, an early change queue, a sustained illness queue, and a stable queue because the title of the queue/category does not functionally alter or relate to the steps of the method and merely labeling the queue/list differently from that of the prior art does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Edelson, Greenblatt, and Stettin to utilize the teachings of Hong since it may serve to determine the prioritization of treatment for patients.
Claim 9 features limitations similar to those of claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 11 features limitations similar to those of claim 15 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 13 features limitations similar to those of claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelson (US 2015/0332012) in view of Greenblatt (US 11,663,669), Stettin (US 10,147,504), Hong (US 2019/0259499), and Ika (US 2018/0322946) and in further view of Underwood (US 2010/0169124)
Claim 12 features limitations similar to those of claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Examiner Notes
No prior art has been applied to claims 22 and 27at this time. No prior art could be found regarding the placement of patients into queues based on the particular parameters set forth in the claim. The Examiner reserves the right to apply prior art to the claims in future actions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant argues the claims address “a technical problem in the current risk models which demand an individual have acute utilization of healthcare services before risk is identified, thus failing to be proactive in identifying patient need”. This is not persuasive as this is not a technical problem. If anything, the claims merely address a problem in business methods.
.The claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer, database, network, or other technology. Rather, the alleged improvement identified by the Applicant is an improvement in the processing, organization, and use of healthcare information to identify and prioritize individuals based upon a calculated score. The claims continue to employ generic computing components to perform conventional information processing operations, including receiving/aggregating healthcare information, analyzing the information, calculating a score, and assigning an individual to a queue or otherwise prioritizing the individual.
In particular, the Applicant has not identified, and the claims do not require, a particular technological mechanism by which any of the claimed computer components are improved. The claims do not, for example, require a new database structure, a new computer architecture, a new networking technique, a new data-storage technique, or a particular unconventional processing technique that improves the operation of the underlying computer technology. The claim instead merely specifies what information is selected, what information is analyzed, and what result is produced. It does not specify a technological improvement in how the underlying computing technology performs those operations.
Applicant’s reliance on the reduction in the number of individuals requiring evaluation (from approximately two million individual to approximately one hundred thousand individuals) likewise does not demonstrate a technological improvement. At most, this demonstrates that the claimed selection and analysis of healthcare information may make the claimed healthcare-management process more efficient. An improvement in the efficiency or usefulness of an information-processing objective is not an improvement in computer functionality or another technology . The relevant query is whether the claim improves the functioning of the technology itself, rather than whether the information produced by the technology is more useful.
Based on at least the above, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant argues that claim 13 has been amended to recite similar language from claim 6 and now overcomes the 112(b) rejection because claim 6 was not rejected in the previous Office action. This is not persuasive. The prior failure to reject claim 6 does not establish that the language of claim 13 is definite or otherwise preclude the Examiner from maintaining a proper rejection of claim 13. Rather, the question under 35 U.S.C,. 112(b) is whether the language of the particular claim under examination, when read in light of the specification and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, informs those skilled in the art of the scope of the claimed invention with reasonable certainty. Claim 13 was previously rejected because the terms “ambulation”, “conscious level”, “activity and evidence of disease”, “food intake”, “self-care ability”, and “obstacles to care” were not reasonably understood from the claim or specification to establish the metes and bounds of the claimed category. (See at least language “For example, while the “self-care function” is described as “a measure of an ability for the person to care for themselves without assistances”, there is no description of what is considered as “care” or “assistance”, featured in previous and current action). Applicant has amended claim 13 to recite “self-care ability is the ability of the individual to care for themselves without assistance”. However, this amendment does not resolve the deficiency previously identified. Although the amendment provides a general description of “self-care ability”, it does not establish with reasonable certainty what activities constitute “care” or what conduct, intervention, or level of intervention constitutes “assistance.” Thus, it remains unclear what circumstances would satisfy or fail to satisfy the claimed “self-care ability”1.
Applicant’s reliance on claim 6 does not alter this conclusion. The fact that claim 6 was not rejected in the previous Office action was not a determination that the recited language was definite and does not provide a substantive interpretation of the claim term. Moreover, the present rejection is directed to claim 13 and is based on the language presently recited in claim 13. The amendment to claim 13 has been considered and does not overcome the identified lack of reasonable certainty.
For at least these reasons, the 112(b) rejections are maintained.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1 and 15 have been considered but are moot due to the application of additional prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant argues that Underwood does not disclose a portion of an event score based on historical health events that does not decrease. This is not persuasive as this is not featured in the claim.
Applicant’s arguments concerning claim 8 are not persuasive. Due at least in part to several 112(b) issues, the prior art was found to be applicable.
Applicant’s arguments concerning claim 12 are not persuasive. Due at least in part to the 112 rejection, Underwood was found to disclose the claim language.
For at least these reasons, the 103 rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abbruzzese (US 2016/0358501) discloses calculating a likelihood score based on claims data (Para. [0069])
“Carcinoma in situ” by City of Hope – indicates that carcinoma in situ is cancer
“Critical Illness Definitions FAQ” by TheStandard – differentiates carcinoma in situ from cancer
“Insurers in Quest of the Perfect Heart Attack Definition” by Andres Webersinke – discusses the changing definitions and classifications of medical conditions
Cline (US 2015/0332182) – teaches creating a score based on the summation of several factors including at least claims, medical information. (Para. [0023])
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 KYLE G ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9261. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 4:30 EST; Friday 7:00-11:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached on (571) 272-6702.
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.
/KYLE G ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
1 For sake of brevity, Examiner limits discussion to the indefiniteness of “self-care” ability”.
Prosecution Insights