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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 08/01/2025, the following occurred: Claims 1, 2, 4, 18 and 20 have been amended. Claims 3 and 11-12 have been canceled. Claims 21-23 are new.
Claims 1-2, 4-10 and 13-23 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/01/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(I) because the following figure(s) is/are unreadable and/or are unsatisfactory for reproduction:
Fig. 8A-8H
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a system and non-transitory computer readable medium for predictive health optimization.
Regarding claims 1, 18 and 20, the limitation of (claim 1 being representative) based on received user credential information, access a plurality of heath record to obtain a corpus of health records for a user, stores a first set of health records, of the corpus of health records for the user, as first codes in a first coding protocol, stores a second set of health records, of the corpus of health records for the user, as second codes in a second coding protocol, wherein the first codes and the second codes include different ones of current procedure terminology (CPT) codes, health common procedure coding system (HCPCS) codes, internal classification of diseases (IDC) codes, internal classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF) codes, diagnostic-related group (DRG) codes, national drug codes (NDC), code on dental procedures and nomenclature (CDT), diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorder (DSM) codes, national council for prescription drugs (NCPDP) codes, or national provider identifier (NPI codes), and wherein the first set of health records and the second set of health records are in a non-standardized format based on the first coding protocol being different from the second coding protocol; translate A) the first codes of the first set of health records from the first coding protocol into a standardized format and B) the second codes of the second set of health records from the second coding protocol into the standardized format, the standardized format being a natural language format including plain language descriptors of A) the first codes of the first set of health records in the first coding protocol and B) the second codes of the second set of health records in the second coding protocol; initiate a health record verification process prompting the user to verify or dispute each of the obtained health records in the natural language format; and subsequent to the health record verification, resulting in a verified set of health records for the user, present a set of one or more risk mitigation providers or health plans based at least in part on the verified set of health records of the user as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method organizing human but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting (in claim 1) a computing system, a network communication interface, one or more networks, one or more processors, a memory, (in claim 18) a non-transitory computer readable medium, one or more processors and a computing system (in claim 20) a computing system, a network communication interface, one or more networks, one or more processors, and a memory, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people (i.e., rules or instructions). For example, but for the computing system, network communication interface, one or more networks, one or more processors, memory and non-transitory computer readable medium the claims encompass a system and non-transitory computer readable medium for predictive health optimization in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. 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 – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, following rules or instructions)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of a computing system, a network communication interface, one or more networks, one or more processors, a memory. Claim 18 recites the additional element of a non-transitory computer readable medium, one or more processors and a computing system. Claim 20 recites the additional element of a computing system, a network communication interface, one or more networks, one or more processors, and a memory. These additional elements are not exclusively defined by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic server for enabling access to medical information or generic computer components for performing generic computer functions) such that they amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 further recite the additional element of health record database systems, computing devices of users, a plurality of heath record systems, a first health record system, a second health record system, a user interface of a display screen of a computing device of the user. Claim 18 recites the additional elements of computing devices of users, a plurality of health record systems, a first health record system, a second health record system, a user interface of a display screen of a computing device of the user. Claim 20 recites the additional elements of health record database systems, a plurality of heath record systems, a first health record system, a second health record system and computing devices of users. These additional element are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means to output/receive/transmit data) and amount to extra solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 element of the computing system, network communication interface, one or more networks, one or more processors, memory and non-transitory computer readable medium to perform the noted steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of health record database systems, computing devices of users, a plurality of heath record systems, a first health record system, a second health record system, and a user interface of a display screen of a computing device of the user were considered extra-solution activity. This has been re-evaluated under “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) indicates that receiving and/or transmitting data over a network has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs., and buySAFE). Well-understood, routine and conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
The examiner notes that: A well-known, general-purpose computer has been determined by the courts to be a well-understood, routine and conventional element (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank; see also MPEP 2106.05(d)); Receiving and/or transmitting data over a network (“a communications network”) has also been recognized by the courts as a well - understood, routine and conventional function (see, e.g., buySAFE v. Google; MPEP 2016(d)(II)); and Performing repetitive calculations is/are also well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see, e.g., Parker v. Flook; MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Claims 2-17, 19 and 21-23 are similarly rejected because they either further define the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Dependent claims 2 and 19 further define initiating a health record dispute process. Dependent claim 3 further defines the health record verification process. Dependent claim 4 further defines presentation of each health record. Dependent claim 5 further defines the dispute process. Dependent claim 6 further defines the executed instructions. Dependent claim 7 further defines the memory. Dependent claims 8-10 further define the executed instructions. Dependent claim 11 further defines the plurality of health record systems. Dependent claims 12-17 further define the executed instructions. Dependent claim 21 further defines receiving updated health information, updating the corpus of health records and convert the updated health information into a standardized format. Dependent claim 22 further defines updating the user interface. Dependent claim 23 further defines the updated health information.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filling of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office Action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to a final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filled after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of obviousness-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 17/984,885 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed towards similar statutory categories and they recite substantially similar limitations. Additionally, while the copending application ‘885 does not claim “initiate a health record verification process to enable the user to verify each of the obtained health records; and subsequent to the health record verification, resulting in a verified set of health records for the user, present, on a display screen of a computing device of the user, a set of one or more risk mitigation providers based at least in part on the verified set of health records of the user”, the specification teaches these limitations. Paragraph [0021] recites “In various implementations, the computing system can initiate a health record verification process with the user to verify that the user's health records are complete and accurate”, paragraph [0027] recites “It is contemplated that subsequent to the health record verification and dispute resolution processes, the user will have a more accurate and complete health record that enables health service providers to provide highly tailored risk mitigation products and health care services for the user”. Moreover, paragraph [0091] recites “In an initial planning phase, the health planning engine 145 can process the user's verified health records to identify the current health risks and predicted health outcomes facing the user 175. Based on this information, the health planning engine 145 can present a set of recommended risk mitigation plans for the user 175, which can include recommended health insurance plans, life insurance plans, automobile insurance plans, etc.” and paragraph [0100] recites “In various examples, the computing system 100 can initiation a health record verification and dispute process by transmitting display data to the computing device 170 of the user 175, where the display data causes the computing device 170 to present an interactive user interface enabling the user to verify and/or dispute health records (210)”. Paragraph [0039] recites “the health records of the user may comprise technical terms or codes (e.g., current procedure terminology (CPT) codes, health common procedure coding system (HCPCS) codes, internal classification of diseases (ICD) codes, internal classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF) codes diagnostic-related group (DRG) codes, national drug codes (NDC codes), code on dental procedures and nomenclature (CDT), diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorder (DSM) codes, generic and brand drug names, medical terminology for diagnoses and procedures, hierarchical condition category (HCC) scores, risk adjustment factor (RAF) scores, national council for prescription drugs (NCPDP) and national provider identifier (NPI) codes, etc.) that may be difficult or impractical for a typical user and/or call agent to decipher”, paragraph [0099] recites “The computing system 100 can be programmed or can execute code translation logic to convert the health records into plain language.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teaching of the specification of application ‘885 with the teaching of the claims of application ‘885 in order to determine optimal healthcare plan for users.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 10-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2008/0177569), in view of Knaus (US 2002/0004727), in view of Sato (US 2019/0139146) and in further view of Csurka (US 2014/0350961).
REGARDING CLAIM 1
Chen discloses a computing system comprising: a network communication interface to communicate, over one or more networks, with (i) health record database systems, and (ii) computing devices of users; one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions ([0010] teaches a network interface to transmit/receive signals to/from at least a first wireless remote, station through a wireless network (interpreted by examiner as a network communication interface to communicate, over one or more networks). [0008] teaches personal health records are generated, updated, and stored electronically and [0032] teaches the personal health information may be manually input from an alternative interface such as a website that is integrated, with the server and database, or automatically integrated with another information system such as a pharmacy prescription management system or a hospital medical system (interpreted by examiner as the health record database system). [0040] and [0039] teaches the use of a processor, hardware and software systems, computing devices (interpreted by examiner as the one or more processors and the computing system). [0025] teaches communicates with one or more other devices also interconnected with the network (interpreted by examiner as computing devices of users) [0026] and [0027] teaches use of memory) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to: based on received user credential information, access a plurality of heath record systems to obtain a corpus of health records for a user ([0011] teaches a method for providing access to a personal health that comprises the steps of (a) receiving a request from an individual to access a personal health record of a user, (b) authenticating the identity of the individual, (c) verifying the individual is authorized to access the personal health record, and (d) providing access to the personal health record when the individual's identity is authenticated and the authorization is verified (interpreted by examiner based on received user credential information, access a plurality of heath record systems to obtain a corpus of health records for a user),
Chen does not explicitly disclose, however Knaus discloses:
initiate a health record verification process prompting the user to verify or dispute each of the obtained health records in the natural language format on a user interface of a display screen of a computing device of the user (Knaus at Fig.8 teaches input-vetting and certification process, [0020] teaches enabling individuals to assemble, update, enhance, analyze, securely store and transmit, certify, and otherwise manage their individual medical records (interpreted by examiner as the health record of Chen) and, under appropriate circumstances, the individual medical records of their family, friends, clients and customers and [0021] teaches the system of the invention allows for certification of medical records, [0058] teaches dispute entries and making other comments directly to the source of the medical record, [0053] teaches annotations for input or recording errors and [claim 36] teaches displaying said medical record pertaining to a patient (interpreted by examiner as means to initiate a health record verification process prompting the user to verify or dispute each of the obtained health records in the natural language format on a user interface of a display screen of a computing device of the user));
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the authentication and authorization system of Chen to incorporate verifying medical records as taught by Knaus, with the motivation of the establishing a secure creation, control and management of medical records and certified as accurate, having the attribute of non-repudiation. (Knaus at [0003]).
Chen and Knaus do not explicitly disclose, however Sato discloses:
and subsequent to the health record verification, resulting in a verified set of health records for the user, present, on the user interface of the display screen of a computing device of the user, a set of one or more risk mitigation providers or health plans based at least in part on the verified set of health records of the user (Sato at [0010] teaches storing subject data including information related to health of a subject (interpreted by examiner as the health record of Chen and Knaus), an analyzer which analyzes a risk related to the health of the subject based on the subject data and an output apparatus which outputs a result of an analysis by the analyzer, wherein the analyzer includes: a risk estimating unit which estimates an event onset risk of the subject based on the subject data. [0016] teaches the output apparatus may output conditions and/or an insurance premium amount of health insurance suitable for the subject (interpreted by examiner as subsequent to the health record verification, resulting in a verified set of health records for the user, present, on the user interface of the display screen of a computing device of the user, a set of one or more risk mitigation providers or health plans based at least in part on the verified set of health records of the user)).
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the authentication and authorization system of Chen and the system for verifying medical records of Knaus to incorporate displaying a set of one or more risk mitigation providers or health plans as taught by Sato, with the motivation of providing an accurate medical expense estimation unit that takes health conditions and health risks of an individual into consideration (Sato at [0003]).
Chen, Knaus and Sato do not explicitly disclose, however Csurka discloses:
wherein a first health record system, of the plurality of health record systems, stores a first set of health records, of the corpus of health records for the user, as first codes in a first coding protocol, wherein a second health record system, of the plurality of health record systems, stores a second set of health records, of the corpus of health records for the user, as second codes in a second coding protocol, (Csurka at [abstract] teaches a system and method for targeted summarization of a patient's electronic medical records. The system includes an aggregation component which provides an aggregation of health records of a patient. [0005] teaches medical data is unstructured and contains a variety of highly heterogeneous information. [0036] and Fig. 2 teach an exemplary system 30 for targeted summarization of a patient's electronic heath (e.g., medical) records 10, as discussed in connection with FIG. 1. The exemplary system 30 has the capability to access the PHR 10 of a given patient, which may be stored in one or more non-transitory data storage devices, such as the illustrated database 32. [0039] teaches the aggregation component may aggregate all available medical data for a given patient, if it has not already been aggregated into a PHR 10. The data includes a collection of health records. The number of health records in the collection is not limited but may be for example, at least five or at least ten health records, at least some of which may be of different modalities (text, audio, image) (interpreted by examiner as wherein a first health record system, of the plurality of health record systems, stores a first set of health records, of the corpus of health records for the user, as first codes in a first coding protocol, wherein a second health record system, of the plurality of health record systems, stores a second set of health records, of the corpus of health records for the user, as second codes in a second coding protocol)); and wherein the first set of health records and the second set of health records are in a non-standardized format based on the first coding protocol being different from the second coding protocol (Csurka at [0024] teaches the collection of patient records may include highly heterogeneous information, including records in different modalities, such as text, audio, and visual information (interpreted by examiner as wherein the first set of health records and the second set of health records are in a non-standardized format based on the first coding protocol being different from the second coding protocol)); wherein the first codes and the second codes include different ones of current procedure terminology (CPT) codes, health common procedure coding system (HCPCS) codes, internal classification of diseases (IDC) codes, internal classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF) codes, diagnostic-related group (DRG) codes, national drug codes (NDC), code on dental procedures and nomenclature (CDT), diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorder (DSM) codes, national council for prescription drugs (NCPDP) codes, or national provider identifier (NPI codes) (Csurka at [0098] teaches classification of the coded medical procedures and billing codes such as CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) codes), translate A) the first codes of the first set of health records from the first coding protocol into a standardized format and B) the second codes of the second set of health records from the second coding protocol into the standardized format, the standardized format being a natural language format including plain language descriptors of A) the first codes of the first set of health records in the first coding protocol and B) the second codes of the second set of health records in the second coding protocol (Csurka at [0022] teaches a uniform representation, based on an ontology, such as a Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) ontology, is used to generate a representation of each of the patient's health records 10 and [0038] teaches transforms each element of the medical records of a patient into a homogeneous representation (interpreted by examiner as translate A) the first codes of the first set of health records from the first coding protocol into a standardized format and B) the second codes of the second set of health records from the second coding protocol into the standardized format) [0083] teaches the exemplary transformation component may include a natural language parser which extracts nouns and multi-word expressions from the text portions of the records and [0071] teaches at least some of the medical concepts selected from the ontology for use in generating the representations may each be associated with a set of terms, such as synonyms (e.g., common and medical names for diseases and other medical conditions) (interpreted by examiner as the standardized format being a natural language format including plain language descriptors of A) the first codes of the first set of health records in the first coding protocol and B) the second codes of the second set of health records in the second coding protocol))
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the authentication and authorization system of Chen, the system for verifying medical records of Knaus and the system for displaying a set of one or more risk mitigation providers or health plans of Sato to incorporate targeted summarization as taught by Csurka, with the motivation of providing a system which retrieves and displays relevant information to help physicians, nurses, surgeons and other health care providers make more informed decisions in a timely manner (Csurka at [0006]).
REGARDING CLAIM 2
Chen, Knaus, Sato and Csurka disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Chen, Sato and Csurka do not explicitly disclose, however Knaus further discloses:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein based on a dispute input from the user for a particular health record, the computing system initiates a health record dispute process with a relevant health record system to dispute the particular health record (Knaus at [0046] teaches errors identified in medical records may be corrected (with appropriate annotation) or simply noted (interpreted by examiner as dispute input from the user for a particular health record) and at [0043] teaches corrections such as additions and deletions, if desired, may be requested and implemented at any time. Specific procedures may be implemented to enable corrections so that the records maintain all desired characteristics. There may be defined procedures whereby members, users or others may challenge the accuracy of certain information in an effort to have that information expunged, corrected or simply noted as disputed (interpreted by examiner as initiates a health record dispute process with a relevant health record system to dispute the particular health record)).
REGARDING CLAIM 4
Chen, Knaus , Sato and Csurka disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Chen, Sato and Csurka do not explicitly disclose, however Knaus further discloses:
The computing system of claim 1, and wherein the executed instructions further cause the computing system to: for a specified health record, receive input data indicating that the user lacks memory for the specified health record; and present one or more memory triggers to stimulate a memory of the user pertaining to the specified health record (Knaus at [0035] teaches input-vetting. [0048] teaches notation placed into the record that the information specified is inconsistent with other information in the record that is also similarly identified (interpreted by examiner as receive input data indicating that the user lacks memory for the specified health record) [0054] teaches all of the information subject to review and appraisal by clinically trained experts or record-experienced experts. Medical records that have been so reviewed are considered to have been vetted. Vetted medical records contain corrections and annotation information such as, for example, a review for accuracy and completeness noting and/or linking any errors or discrepancies (e.g. drug allergies, disparate diagnoses, anomalies, and otherwise unexplained treatments and observations) and [0046] teaches suggestions in the form of supplemental computerized evaluations or other helpful comments may be included with comprehensive certification as to possible diagnoses, possible treatment or health options, and the like. Thus, a part of each level of certification may be a verification that the information is exactly as it appears in the paper or other tangible or even electronic file of the original source, or possibly better (interpreted by examiner as means to present one or more memory triggers to stimulate a memory of the user pertaining to the specified health record)).
REGARDING CLAIM 5
Chen, Knaus, Sato and Csurka disclose the limitation of claim 2.
Chen, Sato and Csurka do not explicitly disclose, however Knaus further discloses:
The computing system of claim 2, wherein the dispute process provides the user with one or more links and/or one or more documents required for disputing the particular health record (Knaus at [0058] teaches HIPAA introduced suggested procedures for patients to suggest amendments, propose corrections, dispute entries and make other comments directly to the source of the medical record. Also teaches dispute verification. [0046] teaches a comprehensive level may include enhanced information plus correlation information such as, for example, a review for completeness, vetting, a review for accuracy, and noting and/or linking of any discrepancies and [0048] teaches errors may be expunged or simply identified and linked (interpreted by examiner as wherein the dispute process provides the user with one or more links)).
REGARDING CLAIM 6
Chen, Knaus, Sato and Csurka disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Chen, Knaus and Csurka do not explicitly disclose, however Sato further discloses:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the executed instructions further cause the computing system to: based at least in part on the verified set of health records for the user, determine a set of health outcome predictions for the user (Sato at [0004] teaches predicting health risks. [0015] teaches the risk estimating unit may estimate the onset probability for each of a plurality of diseases and [0087] teaches simple model for linearly or a nonlinear model may be used for predicting a disease onset probability (interpreted by examiner as determine a set of health outcome predictions for the user)).
REGARDING CLAIM 7
Chen, Knaus, Sato and Csurka disclose the limitation of claim 6.
Chen, Knaus and Csurka do not explicitly disclose, however Sato further discloses:
The computing system of claim 6, wherein the memory further stores ground truth health data comprising correlations between health records of control group users and actual health outcomes of the control group users (Sato at [0082] teaches FIG. 7C represents a display example of a cerebrovascular risk. A comparison between the subject's score and an average score for the subject's age group is shown for each of five risk factors including blood pressure, body-mass index (BMI), smoking habits, diabetes, and blood pressure medication. In addition, FIG. 7D represents a display example of a coronary artery risk. A comparison between the subject's score and an average score for the subject's age group is shown for each of six risk factors including blood pressure, chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate eGFR), smoking habits, diabetes, HDL cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol. By viewing the charts provided in FIGS. 7C and 7D, a presence or absence of a cerebrovascular risk and a coronary artery risk (whether or not there is a deviation from the average), items to be improved, and the like can be readily comprehended. [0083] teaches FIG. 7E represents a display example of respective onset risks of a cerebrovascular event and a coronary artery event. An ordinate represents a probability of developing an event within 10 years. By comparing and displaying an event onset risk of the subject and an average event onset risk for the subject's age group, how high or low the event onset risk of the subject can be readily accessed. In addition, FIG. 7F represents a display example of a total risk which combines an onset risk of a cerebrovascular event and an onset risk of a coronary artery event. For example, a score obtained by weighting and adding up the onset risk of a cerebrovascular event and the onset risk of a coronary artery event and normalizing the sum within a range of 0 (minimum risk) to 100 (maximum risk) can be used as the total risk (interpreted by examiner as stores ground truth health data comprising correlations between health records of control group users and actual health outcomes of the control group users)).
REGARDING CLAIM 8
Chen, Knaus, Sato and Csurka disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Chen, Knaus and Csurka do not explicitly disclose, however Sato further discloses:
The computing system of claim 7, wherein the executed instructions cause the computing system to further determine the set of health outcome predictions based on the ground truth health data (Sato at [0004] teaches predicting health risks and [0087] teaches simple model for linearly or a nonlinear model may be used for predicting a disease onset probability. [0082] teaches that by viewing the charts provided in FIGS. 7C and 7D, a presence or absence of a cerebrovascular risk and a coronary artery risk (whether or not there is a deviation from the average), items to be improved, and the like can be readily comprehended. [0083] teaches By comparing and displaying an event onset risk of the subject and an average event onset risk for the subject's age group, how high or low the event onset risk of the subject can be readily accessed (interpreted by examiner as determine the set of health outcome predictions based on the ground truth health data)).
REGARDING CLAIM 10
Chen, Knaus, Sato and Csurka disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Chen, Knaus and Csurka do not explicitly disclose, however Sato further discloses:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the executed instructions further cause the computing system to: based on the verified set of health records of the user, provide individually tailored health-related literature to the user (Sato at [0010] teaches an analyzer that analyzes a risk related to the health of the subject based on the subject data acquired and an output apparatus which outputs a result of an analysis by the analyzer (interpreted by examiner as individually tailored health-related literature to the user)).
REGARDING CLAIM 14
Chen, Knaus, Sato and Csurka disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Chen, Knaus and Csurka do not explicitly disclose, however Sato further discloses:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the executed instructions further cause the computing system to: determine one or more adverse factors in the verified set of health records, the one or more adverse factors corresponding to adverse effects between at least one of prescription medications, health conditions, or treatments as indicated in the verified set of health records of the user (Sato at [0010] teaches estimates an event onset risk of the subject based on the subject data [0011] teaches an “event” refers to a phenomenon which adversely affects health and is typically a “disease”. The term “event onset” may be replaced with “disease onset”. [0044] teaches data of subject include medication).
REGARDING CLAIM 15
Chen, Knaus, Sato and Csurka disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Chen, Knaus and Csurka do not explicitly disclose, however Sato further discloses:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the executed instructions further cause the computing system to: determine a set of benefits for the user and provide a recommendation of a health plan for the user that includes the set of benefits (Sato at [0035] teaches analyzer is a functional unit which analyzes health risks of a subject based on subject data. In addition, the medication support apparatus is a functional unit which determines a medication method suitable for a pathological condition of the subject based on subject data and a result of risk analysis. The analyzer and the medication support apparatus preferably perform risk analysis and determine a medication method based on evidence. Furthermore, the output apparatus is a functional unit which generates a report based on an analysis result of the analyzer or a processing result of the medication support apparatus and provides the subject or a user of the system with the report and [0036] teaches the system can be used by an individual subject for the purposes of health management and self-check of risks or used by a physician, a nurse, a public health nurse, or the like for the purposes of analyzing a health condition of a patient and creating a treatment policy or guidance contents. In addition, the present system can also be preferably applied to an insurance company for the purposes of subjectively analyzing health conditions and health risks of a client (an insurance subscription applicant) and using the analysis result to propose an insurance policy suitable for the client, determine a propriety of insurance subscription, set terms and conditions, and the like (interpreted by examiner as determine a set of benefits for the user and provide a recommendation of a health plan for the user that includes the set of benefits)).
REGARDING CLAIM 16
Chen, Knaus, Sato and Csurka disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Chen, Knaus and Csurka do not explicitly disclose, however Sato further discloses:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the executed instructions further cause the computing system to: based at least in part on the verified set of health records for the user, predict at least one of (i) a future set of prescriptions for the user, or (ii) a future health care usage need for the user over a predetermined period of time (Sato at [0010] teaches predicting future medical expenses to be incurred in the future by the subject based on the event onset risk estimated by the risk estimating unit and the subject data (interpreted by examiner as a future health care usage need for the user over a predetermined period of time)).
REGARDING CLAIM 17
Chen, Knaus, Sato and Csurka disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Chen, Sato and Csurka do not explicitly disclose, however Knaus further discloses:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the executed instructions cause the computing system to provide the user with a list of recommendations comprising at least one of (i) foods to avoid, (ii) activities to avoid, (iii) foods to consume, or (iv) activities to perform (Knaus at [0053] teaches diet concerns and [0064] teaches screening out identification criteria to explore, for example, the incidence of certain diseases or conditions and tracking correlations between health care and, for example, exercise, diet and nutrition. Individual health alerts and reminders can be posted to a general site, accessible to all or a plurality of persons, or to specific accounts within a member's medical record according to predetermined and agreed to criteria (interpreted by examiner as means to provide the user with a list of recommendations comprising at least one of (i) foods to avoid, (ii) activities to avoid, (iii) foods to consume, or (iv) activities to perform)).
REGARDING CLAIM 19
Claim 19 is analogous to Claim 2 thus Claim 19 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 2.
REGARDING CLAIMS 18 and 20
Claims 18 and 20 are analogous to Claim 1 thus Claims 18 and 20 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 1.
REGARDING CLAIM 21
Chen, Knaus, Sato and Csurka disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Chen, Sato and Csurka do not explicitly disclose, however Knaus further discloses:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the computing system to: receive updated health information for the user, update the corpus of health records as the updated health information is obtained; (Knaus at [0020] teaches updating individual medical records and [0060] teaches updating by obtaining additional medical record data (interpreted by examiner as receive updated health information for the user and update the corpus of health records as the updated health information is obtained)).
Chen, Knaus and Sato do not explicitly disclose, however Csurka further discloses:
the updated health information being in the non-standardized format; and convert the updated health information from the non-standardized format into the standardized format (Csurka at [0024] teaches the collection of patient records may include highly heterogeneous information, including records in different modalities, such as text, audio, and visual information (interpreted by examiner as the updated health information, oh Knaus, being in the non-standardized format) [0022] teaches a uniform representation, based on an ontology, such as a Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) ontology, is used to generate a representation of each of the patient's health records 10 and [0038] teaches transforms each element of the medical records of a patient into a homogeneous representation (interpreted by examiner as convert the updated health information, of Knaus, from the non-standardized format into the standardized format)).
REGARDING CLAIM 22
Chen, Knaus, Sato and Csurka disclose the limitation of claim 21.
Chen, Sato and Csurka do not explicitly disclose, however Knaus further discloses:
he computing system of claim 21, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the computing system to: automatically update the user interface with the updated health information in the standardized format, such that the user has access to up-to-date health information (Knaus at [0011] teaches provides a user with an interface to fully review the information in the database (interpreted by examiner as means automatically update the user interface with the updated health information in the standardized format, such that the user has access to up-to-date health information)).
REGARDING CLAIM 23
Chen, Knaus, Sato and Csurka disclose the limitation of claim 22.
Chen, Sato and Csurka do not explicitly disclose, however Knaus further discloses:
The computing system of The computing system of wherein the updated health information is obtained x) from the computing device of the user and y) one or more remote computing systems over a network, and wherein the updated health information from the computing device of the user is in a different format than the updated health information from the one or more remote computing systems, wherein the user has access to the up-to-date health information regardless of the different format of the updated health information from the computing device of the user and the one or more remote computing systems (Knaus at [0013] teaches a central computer system for sending and receiving patient information (interpreted by examiner as one or more remote computing systems over a network) [0038] teaches a computer or similar device that stores and maintains medical records (interpreted by examiner as computing device of the user) [0022] teaches securely updating the database with additional information from different sources (i.e. integration) for new or existing patients and [0051] teaches the invention includ