DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
The office action is in response to the claims filed on December 29, 2025 for the application filed December 6, 2022 having priority to Application No. 16/803,999 filed on March 14, 2017. Claims 20-41 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 20-41 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.
Eligibility Step 1:
Under step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, claims 20-30 are directed towards a method (i.e. a process), which is a statutory category. Claims 31-41 are directed towards a system (i.e. a machine), which is a statutory category. Since the claims are directed toward statutory categories, it must be determined if the claims are directed towards a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In the instant application, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One:
Under step 2A, prong one of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, independent claims 20 and 31 are determined to be directed to an judicial exception because an abstract idea is recited in the claims which fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas. The abstract idea (identified in bold) recited in the representative claim 20 is identified as:
A method, comprising:
flagging, by a computer, each of a plurality of potential problems, with one or more problem- related identifiers;
associating each potential problem with a plurality of non-problem features;
receiving an electronic medical record or an electronic health record for a subject, comprising a patient problem list and a plurality of patient-related data not contained on the patient problem list;
identifying, using natural language processing executed by a processor on a computer, one or more non-problem features from among the plurality of non-problem features contained within the plurality of patient-related data;
displaying a graphical user interface having a plurality of separate regions, each region including a unique header, wherein a first region of the plurality of separate regions includes the patient problem list and a second region of the plurality of separate regions includes the identified non-problem features;
determining, by the computer, whether one or more of the identified non-problem features correspond to one or more problems not present on the patient problem list; and
updating the patient problem list to include at least one of the problems corresponding to the identified non-problem features.
dynamically updating the graphical user interface based on the updated patient problem list, wherein the updated graphical user interface includes the updated patient problem list in the first region of the plurality of separate regions.
The identified limitations of the abstract idea of claims 20 and 31 fall within the subject matter grouping of mental processes. If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. The claimed steps of flagging, associating, identifying, and updating are determining are capable of being performing in the human mind using observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions and therefore recite mental processes.
The identified limitations of the abstract idea of claims 20 and 31 also fall within the subject matter grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity related and the sub grouping of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The claims recite the human activity of updating a patient problem list with problems not currently present in the problem list by processing patient-related data to identify features of the data corresponding to problems. This is an activity routinely performed by healthcare professionals when updating patient records.
Accordingly, claims 20 and 31 recite an abstract idea under step 2A, prong one.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong Two:
Under step 2A, prong two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether the identified abstract ideas are integrated into a practical application. After evaluation, there is no indication that any additional elements or combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, such as through: an additional element that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvements to any other technology or technical field; an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; an additional element that implements the judicial exception with, or uses the judicial exception in connection with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As shown below, the additional elements, other than the abstract idea per se, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than a recitation of: generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use; insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and/or adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as evidenced below.
The additional elements recited in representative claim 20 are identified in italics as:
A method, comprising:
flagging, by a computer, each of a plurality of potential problems, with one or more problem- related identifiers;
associating each potential problem with a plurality of non-problem features;
receiving an electronic medical record or an electronic health record for a subject, comprising a patient problem list and a plurality of patient-related data not contained on the patient problem list;
identifying, using natural language processing executed by a processor on a computer, one or more non-problem features from among the plurality of non-problem features contained within the patient-related data;
displaying a graphical user interface having a plurality of separate regions, each region including a unique header, wherein a first region of the plurality of separate regions includes the patient problem list and a second region of the plurality of separate regions includes the identified non-problem features;
determining, by the computer, whether one or more of the identified non-problem features correspond to one or more problems not present on the patient problem list;
updating the patient problem list to include at least one of the problems corresponding to the identified non-problem features; and
dynamically updating the graphical user interface based on the updated patient problem list, wherein the updated graphical user interface includes the updated patient problem list in the first region of the plurality of separate regions.
The additional limitations of “by a computer” and “by a processor of a computer” are determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(f). The computer and processor are recited at a high level of generality and merely used in their ordinary capacity to perform the identified abstract idea. The additional limitation of “using natural language processing” is also determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(f). The natural language processing is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the natural language processing functions. Rather, this limitation only recites the outcome of “identifying… one or more non-problem features” and does not include any details about how the “identifying” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or no more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The additional limitations of “receiving…”, “displaying a graphical user interface…” and “dynamically updating the graphical user interface…” are determined to be no more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception under MPEP §2106.05(g). Receiving data, displaying data and updating the displayed data is mere necessary data necessary data gathering and data outputting which do not add meaning limitations to the claims.
Accordingly, claims 20 and 31 do not recite additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Eligibility Step 2B:
Under step 2B of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether provide an inventive concept by determining if the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After evaluation, there is no indication that an additional element or combination of elements 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 limitations of “by a computer” and “by a processor of a computer” are determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(f), which is do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional limitations of “receiving…”, “displaying…” and “dynamically updating…” are determined to be no more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception under MPEP §2106.05(g) also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as these are well-understood, routine and conventional data gathering functions of a computer as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(g), MPEP §2106.05(d), subsection II, Tamblyn and Delaney .
Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements amounts to an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims:
The dependent claims merely present additional abstract information in tandem with further details regarding the elements from the independent claims and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons as given above. Dependent claims 21, 28, 30, 32, 39 and 41 recite steps which can be performed in the human mind and further define the abstract idea of claims 20 and 31 and are therefore also directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. Dependent claims 22-27 and 33-38 merely specify what the non-problem feature are and what the problems-related identifiers are and are therefore encompassed by the abstract idea recited in claims 20 and 31. Dependent claims 29 and 40 recite the additional elements of “presenting…” and “receiving…” are determined to be no more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of mere data gathering and outputting under MPEP §2106.05(g) which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as these are well-understood, routine and conventional data gathering and outputting functions of a computer as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(g) and MPEP §2106.05(d), subsection II.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, 20-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 20-24, 26, 28-35, 37 and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamblyn et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0144039) in view of Bagchi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0078062) and Delaney et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0280353).
Regarding claim 20, Tamblyn discloses a method, comprising:
flagging, by a computer, each of a plurality of potential problems, with one or more problem-related identifiers (Paragraph [0050], the healthcare knowledge database 190, which contains a look-up conversion table mapping indications of ailments to health problem designations. Fig. 4 shows identifiers of potential problems. Also see paragraphs [0043], disease and drug-based reference information for use by the functional entity 150 and [0054, healthcare knowledge database 190 contains a table mapping prescription drugs to specific diseases.);
associating each potential problem with a plurality of non-problem features (Paragraph [0050], the healthcare knowledge database 190, which contains a look-up conversion table mapping indications of ailments to health problem designations. Paragraph [0054], the healthcare knowledge database 190 contains a table mapping prescription drugs to specific diseases, for those cases in which there is only one main disease associated with the drug. For example, the table maps the drug “insulin” to the disease “diabetes”. Indications of ailments and drug are construed as non-problem features. Also see paragraph [0054].);
receiving an electronic medical record or an electronic health record for a subject, comprising a patient problem list and a plurality of patient-related data not contained on the patient problem list (Paragraph [0039], The information sources 102, 104, 106, 108 provide the healthcare management system 100 with information of varying types and in varying formats. The manner in which the information is conveyed forms no part of the present invention and may include a dedicated link, a secure virtual private network (VPN), an encrypted internet session, a password-protected data exchange, etc. Paragraph [0040], the information provided to the healthcare management system 100 relates to claims for drug dispensation, and may take the form of dispensed prescription records 110. Each dispensed prescription record 110 identifies a patient and a prescription drug dispensed to the patient. Paragraph [0042], the information provided to the healthcare management system 100 relates to insurance claims for medical services, and may take the form of medical service claim records 122. Each medical service record 122 identifies a patient and specifies a type of medical service performed (e.g., medical or surgical procedure, etc.) and an indication of a medical condition or ailment for which the medical service was performed. Paragraph [0043], The healthcare management system 100 interacts with one or more reference databases in the course of its processing operations, including a healthcare knowledge database 190. Paragraph [0051], health problem list stored in the healthcare knowledge database 190. Fig. 2 shows a received healthcare problem list. Also see fig. 1 and paragraph [0041]..);
identifying, Paragraph [0050], the functional entity 150 extracts from each medical service claim record 122 the patient identifier as well as the indication of the medical condition or ailment for which the medical service was performed. This indication of the ailment for which the medical service was performed may take the form of a billing code, medical terminology or a known designation, among other possibilities. Paragraph [0053], the functional entity 150 extracts from each received record 110, 120, 114 the patient identifier as well as the indication of the prescription drug dispensed to the patient. This indication of the dispensed drug may take the form of a billing code, medical terminology or a known designation, among other possibilities. Also see paragraph [0026].);
displaying a graphical user interface having a plurality of separate regions, each region including a unique header, wherein a first region of the plurality of separate regions includes the patient problem list (Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0062]-[0068], The graphical user interface 160 is operative to supply all or a portion of the information contained in a patient's health problem list to the display 170, for presentation in a user-friendly manner. The graphical user interface 160 displays a health problem list over the display 170 as shown in the screen shot of FIG. 2. In the example shown, the health problem list for a particular patient is displayed in two separate text boxes 200, 210, respectively labelled Health Problems and Allergies.)
determining, by the computer, whether one or more of the identified non-problem features correspond to one or more problems not present on the patient problem list (Paragraph [0050], The functional entity 150 is capable to convert the indication of the ailment into a health problem designation, if necessary, by consulting the healthcare knowledge database 190, which contains a look-up conversion table mapping indications of ailments to health problem designations. Paragraph [0051], on basis of the patient identifier, the functional entity 150 adds each new health problem revealed by a medical service claim record 122 to the appropriate health problem list stored in the healthcare knowledge database 190. Paragraph [0055], on the basis of the patient identifiers and indications of dispensed drugs extracted from the records 110, 120, 114, the functional entity 150 attempts to determine health problems with which the patients are potentially afflicted. If successful in determining a new potential health problem for a patient, i.e. when the dispensed drug is disease-specific, the functional entity 150 is operative to automatically add the new potential health problem to the appropriate health problem list stored in the healthcare knowledge database 190, on the basis of the respective patient identifier. Paragraph [0060], the functional entity 150 may add entry-specific qualifiers to each health problem list, where the qualifiers characterize the particular health problems with which they are associated. Such qualifiers may indicate that a particular health problem or allergy is only a potential one (i.e. not yet confirmed or validated by a physician), that a particular allergy is actually a medication intolerance, or that a health problem or allergy does not exist in the healthcare knowledge database 190, among other possibilities. Also see paragraphs [0053]-[0054 and [0059].); and
updating the patient problem list to include at least one of the problems corresponding to the identified non-problem features (Paragraphs [0051] on the basis of the patient identifier, the functional entity 150 adds each new health problem revealed by a medical service claim record 122 to the appropriate health problem list stored in the healthcare knowledge database 190. Paragraph [0055], the functional entity 150 is operative to automatically add the new potential health problem to the appropriate health problem list stored in the healthcare knowledge database 190, on the basis of the respective patient identifier. Also see paragraphs [0076]-[0077].); and
dynamically updating the graphical user interface based on the updated patient problem list, wherein the updated graphical user interface includes the updated patient problem list in the first region of the plurality of regions (Paragraph [0062], This transmission of all or a subset of a patient's health problem list to the display 170 may occur automatically when a user, typically a physician, initiates a session with the healthcare management system 100. Paragraph [0075], The functional entity 150 processes this data and updates the appropriate health problem list stored in the healthcare knowledge database 190 accordingly. As a result, the health problem list displayed on the display 170 is also updated. Paragraph [0076], when a physician initiates a new session with the healthcare management system 100, the functional entity 150 may instruct the graphical user interface 160 to automatically display to the physician over the display 170 a sub-list of the health problem list for the particular patient. An example of this sub-list is shown in the screen shot of FIG. 4. The sub-list displayed in the text box 400 includes all of the ailments detected automatically by the functional entity 150 for the particular patient since the last time a session was run for the particular patient. As described above, these ailments may have been detected by the functional entity 150 upon receiving insurance claims for medical services, drug dispensation claims, electronic prescription records from other physicians, etc. Also see paragraphs [0064]-[0068].).
Tamblyn does not appear to explicitly disclose that the identifying is performed using natural language processing.
Bagchi teaches that it was old and well known in the art of decision support systems at the time of the filing to identify features from electronic medical records using natural language processes (Bagchi, paragraph [0051], The input from the problem can be multi-modal, such as text, audio, images, and video. The text can be unstructured, such as paragraphs of problem description in natural language, or structured, such as the content derived from a database. Paragraphs [0074], the first patient 502 has been selected and has described symptoms that are listed in the History of Present Illness section 506. This information can be input by a health care professional into an Electronic Health Record (EHR) or merely made available for the system to consider by typing into the box 506. The proposed system can pull the relevant information automatically from the health record. Paragraph [0053], the method identifies semantic concepts, relations and other relevant knowledge when the incoming information is unstructured, such as natural language text, audio or images, the concepts, relations and other kinds of information relevant to the domain has to be identified.) to make entry of patient data less difficult (Bagchi, paragraph [0013])
Therefore, it would have been old and well known in the art of decision support systems at the time of the filing to modify the identifying of Tamblyn to be done using natural language processing, as taught by Bagchi, in order to make entry of patient data less difficult.
Tamblyn does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein a second region of the plurality of separate regions includes the identified non-problem features.
Delaney teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electronic medical records at the time of the filing to include displaying a graphical user interface having a plurality of separate regions, each region including a unique header, wherein a first region of the plurality of separate regions includes the patient problem list and a second region of the plurality of separate regions includes the identified non-problem features (Delaney, paragraph [0137], when there is a linkage between a fact in the set and a portion of the text narrative, the linkage may be maintained when the fact is included in the electronic medical record. In some embodiments, this linkage may be made viewable by simultaneously displaying the fact within the electronic medical record and the text narrative (or at least the portion of the text narrative from which the fact was extracted), and providing an indication of the linkage in any of the ways described above. Fig. 3A shows a GUI displaying a region with facts under the heading “problems” and a region with the text narrative under the heading 210 with portions linked to the facts under the headings “chief complaint”, “medical history” and “social history”.) to allow a clinician and/or other user to appreciate how the extracted fact is related to what was actually said in the free-form narration (Delaney, paragraph [0134]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic medical records at the time of the filing to modify the graphical user interface of Tamblyn such that a second region of the plurality of separate regions includes the identified non-problem features, as taught by Delaney, in order to allow a clinician and/or other user to appreciate how the extracted fact (problem in the problem list of Tamblyn) is related to what was actually said in the free-form narration (medical service claim record of Tamblyn).
Regarding claim 21, Tamblyn further discloses the method of claim 20, wherein the plurality of non-problem features comprise a plurality of types of features (Paragraph [0050], This indication of the ailment for which the medical service was performed may take the form of a billing code, medical terminology or a known designation, among other possibilities. Paragraph [0053], This indication of the dispensed drug may take the form of a billing code, medical terminology or a known designation, among other possibilities.), but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the step of determining whether one or more of the identified non-problem features correspond to one or more problems not present in the patient problem list comprises identifying whether a problem-related identifier related to a first non-problem feature in a first type of feature and a problem-related identifier related to a second non-problem feature in a second type of feature suggest a relationship to a common problem.
Bagchi teaches that it was old and well known in the art of decision support systems at the time of the filing to wherein determining whether one or more of the identified non-problem features correspond to one or more problems comprises identifying whether a problem-related identifier related to a first non-problem feature in a first type of feature and a problem-related identifier related to a second non-problem feature in a second type of feature suggest a relationship to a common problem (Bagchi, fig. 3 and paragraphs [0054]-[0055] show and discuss determining that extracted concept/feature corresponds to a disease/problem by identifying that concepts/features of different types are related to the same disease/problem.) to make reasoning behind diagnostic suggestions more transparent (Bagchi, paragraph [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been old and well known in the art of decision support systems at the time of the filing to modify the method of Tamblyn such that the determining whether one or more of the identified non-problem features correspond to one or more problems comprises identifying whether a problem-related identifier related to a first non-problem feature in a first type of feature and a problem-related identifier related to a second non-problem feature in a second type of feature suggest a relationship to a common problem, as taught by Bagchi, in order to make entry of patient data less difficult.
Regarding claim 22, Tamblyn further discloses the method of claim 20, wherein the one or more non-problem features includes one or more medications related to the one or more problems not present on the patient problem list (Paragraph [0053], the functional entity 150 extracts from each received record 110, 120, 114 the patient identifier as well as the indication of the prescription drug dispensed to the patient. This indication of the dispensed drug may take the form of a billing code, medical terminology or a known designation, among other possibilities. Paragraph [0054], Once the drug designation has been determined, the functional entity 150 will attempt to determine a patient ailment for which the drug was dispensed, by again consulting the healthcare knowledge database 190.)
Regarding claim 23, Tamblyn does not appear to explicitly discloses, but Bagchi teaches that it was old and well known in the art of decision support systems at the time of the filing, wherein the one or more non-problem features includes one or more labs related to the one or more problems not present on the patient problem list (Paragraph [0052], The input may be triggered by a change in the problem condition, the result of additional tests or procedures performed. Paragraphs [0070], lab test. Also see fig. 3.) to make reasoning behind diagnostic suggestions more transparent (Bagchi, paragraph [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been old and well known in the art of decision support systems at the time of the filing to modify the method of Tamblyn such that the one or more non-problem features includes one or more labs related to the one or more problems not present on the patient problem list, as taught by Bagchi, in order to make entry of patient data less difficult.
Regarding claim 24, Tamblyn further discloses the method of claim 20, wherein the one or more non-problem features includes one or more procedures related to the one or more problems not present on the patient problem list (Paragraph [0050], the functional entity 150 extracts from each medical service claim record 122 the patient identifier as well as the indication of the medical condition or ailment for which the medical service was performed. This indication of the ailment for which the medical service was performed may take the form of a billing code, medical terminology or a known designation, among other possibilities.).
Regarding claim 26, Tamblyn further discloses the method of claim 20, wherein the one or more non-problem features includes one or more allergy results related to the one or more problems not present on the patient problem list (Paragraph [0057], each electronic prescription record 112 identifies a patient, a clinical diagnosis associated with the drug prescription (in the form of an ailment, allergy or medication intolerance with which the patient is or may be afflicted), as well as a date of prescription, among other information.).
Regarding claim 28, Tamblyn does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Delaney teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electronic medical records at the time of the filing, wherein the plurality of potential problems are arranged into one or more categories or clusters of problems (Delaney, fig. 5 shows different problems arranged into different categories of problems. Also see paragraph [0077].), wherein the step of determining whether one or more of the identified non-problem features correspond to one or more problems not present on the patient problem list comprises:
associating a first non-problem feature with a first problem in a first category or cluster of problems (Delaney, fig. 5 and paragraphs [0046], [0092] and [0104] show and discuss that concepts may be associated with problem categories and that the concepts may be non-problem concepts such as medications and others. (i.e. procedures as taught by Tamblyn.);
associating a second non-problem feature with a second problem in a second category or cluster of problems (Delaney, fig. 5 and paragraphs [0046], [0092] and [0104] show and discuss that concepts may be associated with problem categories and that the concepts may be non-problem concepts such as medications and others. (i.e. procedures as taught by Tamblyn.);
determining whether the first category or cluster of problems is the same as the second category or cluster of problems (Delaney, fig. 5 and paragraphs [0046], [0092] and [0102]-[0104] show and discuss that the problem categories for the different concepts may be the same, which aids in determining a medical problem.); and
identifying a plurality of problems within the first category or clusters of problems as potential problems not present in the patient problem list (Delaney, figs 3A and 5 and paragraphs [0046], [0068]-[0069], [0092] and [0102]-[0104] show and discuss identifying a the problems based on the concepts related to the problem category.) to enhance the creation and use of structured electronic medical records (Delaney, paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic medical record systems at the time of the filing to modify the method of Tamblyn to include the limitations above, as taught by Delyaney, in order to enhance the creation and use of structured electronic medical records.
Regarding claim 29, Tamblyn further discloses the method of claim 28, further comprising:
presenting, via the graphical user interface, the one or more problems to a user (Paragraph [0076], the functional entity 150 may instruct the graphical user interface 160 to automatically display to the physician over the display 170 a sub-list of the health problem list for the particular patient. An example of this sub-list is shown in the screen shot of FIG. 4. The sub-list displayed in the text box 400 includes all of the ailments detected automatically by the functional entity 150 for the particular patient since the last time a session was run for the particular patient.); and
receiving, via the graphical user interface, a user selection of one or more of the one or more problems (Paragraph [0077], The physician may change the status of one or more of the ailments in the sub-list by clicking on the appropriate portion of the display screen, thereby selecting to confirm (“Yes” status 42) or deny (“No” status 430) that the patient is afflicted with the particular ailment. Any such modifications are transmitted from the graphical user interface 160 to the functional entity 150 when the physician clicks on the Save icon 440. The functional entity 150 processes this data and updates the appropriate health problem list stored in the healthcare knowledge database 190 accordingly.).
Regarding claim 30, Tamblyn does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Delaney teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electronic medical records at the time of the filing wherein the one or more non-problem features are each mapped to descriptions in one or more domains of an interface terminology that comprises a plurality of domains (Paragraph [0077], As used herein, different words or phrases that may be used in speech or text to refer to the same concept are referred to as different “terms” corresponding to the same concept. The concept may represent a semantic meaning that can be expressed in different ways by the different terms. As such, in some embodiments, one or more nodes of an ontology may each be associated with a set of known terms that may be used to refer to the corresponding concept. Paragraph [0122], An exemplary set of medical fact categories includes categories for problems, medications, allergies, social history, procedures and vital signs. Also see fig. 5.), wherein the one or more potential problems are each mapped to descriptions in an additional domain of the interface terminology (Fig. 5 shows an example ontology where problems are matched to concept descriptions in different medical fact categories. Also see paragraphs [0046], [0092] and [0096].), the interface terminology further comprising, in a plurality of the domains:
a plurality of concepts, and a plurality of descriptions, wherein each concept is unique within a domain, and wherein each description is an alternative way to express a respective concept (Paragraph [0077], FIG. 5 demonstrates an example of a simple (and non-comprehensive) ontology of a few medical concepts. Each ovoid shape in FIG. 5 graphically represents a node of the ontology, corresponding to a particular concept. The text inside a node is the tag assigned to the corresponding concept. As used herein, different words or phrases that may be used in speech or text to refer to the same concept are referred to as different “terms” corresponding to the same concept. The concept may represent a semantic meaning that can be expressed in different ways by the different terms. As such, in some embodiments, one or more nodes of an ontology may each be associated with a set of known terms that may be used to refer to the corresponding concept.) to enhance the creation and use of structured electronic medical records (Delaney, paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic medical record systems at the time of the filing to modify the method of Tamblyn to include the limitations above, as taught by Delaney, in order to enhance the creation and use of structured electronic medical records.
Claims 31-35, 37 and 39-41 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 20-24, 26 and 28-30.
Claims 25, 27, 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamblyn et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0144039) in view of Bagchi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0078062), Delaney et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0280353) and Chaudhri et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0239671).
Regarding claim 25, Tamblyn does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Chaudhri teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare information management at the time of the filing wherein the one or more non-problem features includes one or more imaging results (Chaudhri, paragraphs [0018], [0020], [0024] and [0049]-[0053] discuss that data items from patient medical records are identified and associated with concepts, such as problems, which include diagnostic imaging reports.) to reconcile healthcare information in a manner that is reliable and usable to those in the healthcare field (Chaudhri, paragraph [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare information management at the time of the filing to modify the non-problem features of Tamblyn such that the one or more non-problem features includes one or more imaging results, as taught by Chaudhri, in order to reconcile healthcare information in a manner that is reliable and usable to those in the healthcare field.
Regarding claim 27, Tamblyn does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Chaudhri teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare information management at the time of the filing wherein the problem-related identifiers comprise Hierarchical Condition Category values (Chaudhri, paragraphs [0020], [0063] and [0065]-[0065] discuss that it is common to represent medical problems using medical coding system, such as HCC codes.) to reconcile healthcare information in a manner that is reliable and usable to those in the healthcare field (Chaudhri, paragraph [0006]) and to comply with Medicare Advantage claim requirements (Chaudhri, paragraph [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare information management at the time of the filing to modify the problem-related identifiers of Tamblyn such that the problem-related identifiers comprise Hierarchical Condition Category values, as taught by Chaudhri, in order to reconcile healthcare information in a manner that is reliable and usable to those in the healthcare field and comply with Medicare Advantage claim requirements.
Claims 36 and 38 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 25 and 27.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 regarding claims 20-41 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims recite elements which cannot be practically be performed in the human mind such that the claims are eligible under step 2A, prong one.
In response, the displaying of a graphical user interface and the dynamic updating of the graphical user interface are determined to be additional elements and analyzed under step 2A, prong two and step 2B. The instant claims recite multiple limitations which may be performed in the human mind and are thus determined to be directed to an abstract idea under step 2A, prong one and the analysis continues. MPEP §2106.04(a)2)(III)(A) applies to claims which do not include any steps which may be performed in the human mind, not to claims with only certain limitations which cannot be performed in the human mind. Furthermore, the human mind is equipped to perform natural language processing under broadest interpretation thereof, but when interpreting natural language processing as a term of art directed to computer implementation thereof, this limitation is now being considered as an additional element.
Applicant argues that the claims any abstract idea in the claims is integrated into a practical application under step 2A, prong two because the Office has failed to consider the claim as a whole. Specifically, the Applicant argues claims solve the technical problems of EMR or EHR technology by analyzing data and providing intuitive displays which permit more immediate comprehension and additional analysis of the patient record” (as opposed to other EHR or EMR technology tools).
In response, the additional limitation of displaying a graphical user interface have a plurality of separate regions and dynamically updating the graphical user interface to include updated patient problem lists is determined to by the insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting and well-understood, routine and conventional as discussed in the instant rejection. Displaying a GUI an a display with separate regions to display received data and updated data is not an improvement to technology, but merely an extra-solution activity to the abstract idea of updating a patient problem list.
Applicant argues that the claims are similar to Core Wireless and Trading Technologies.
In response, Core Wireless was found to be directed to an improved user interface for devices with small screens and Trading Technologies was found to eligible because the graphical user interface method imparts specific functionality to a trading system “directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in software arts” and is non-precedential. Here, the claims or specification are not directed to an improved user interface and the graphical user interface does not impart specific functionality to a EMR system “directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in software arts”.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to step 2B are addressed in the instant rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 regarding claims 20-41 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Devin C. Hein whose telephone number is (303)297-4305. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM M-F MDT.
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, Jason B. Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. 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.
/DEVIN C HEIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3686