DETAILED ACTION
Notices to Applicant
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 as filed 05/14/2026, are currently pending and have been considered below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/02/2026 has been entered.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-19 are drawn to a method for determining care based on a patient risk score, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. method).
Independent Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method comprising:
determining, by a computer, a rank order correlation of variables of patient health data comprising at least one of diagnosis codes, lab values or vital signs common to a subset of patients,
wherein each of the patients within the subset of patients are within a panel of patients from a panel for a particular provider,
wherein the subset of the patients have a likelihood of an adverse health outcome for each patient within the panel of patients, and
wherein the rank order correlation determines a statistical dependence between a ranking of the diagnosis codes and the likelihood of the adverse health outcome;
storing, by the computer, the rank order correlation in a database;
placing, by the computer, frequently used files containing the rank order correlation on separate file systems to reduce in and out bottlenecks and to optimize performance of the database;
designating, by the computer, a key field in a plurality of related data tables to speed searching for the rank order correlation;
merging, by the computer, the plurality of related data tables based on a type of the rank order correlations in the key field;
obtaining, by the computer, the rank order correlation from the database
determining, by the computer, a risk score for each patient within the panel of patients based on the rank order correlation from the database of at least one of the diagnosis codes, the lab values or the vital signs;
lowering, by the computer, a timeframe to a lowered timeframe for allocating healthcare resources for the patient, in response to the risk score for the patient being higher than other risk scores for other patients in the panel of patients; and
setting, by the computer, the lowered timeframe, in response to the allocating the healthcare resources.
The claim limitations, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the above bolded limitations, for example “by a computer,” “a database,” and “file systems,” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the above bolded language, determining a rank order correlation of variables of patient health data comprising at least one of diagnosis codes, lab values or vital signs common to a subset of patients, wherein each of the patients within the subset of patients are within a panel of patients from a panel for a particular provider, wherein the subset of the patients have a likelihood of an adverse health outcome for each patient within the panel of patients, and wherein the rank order correlation determines a statistical dependence between a ranking of the diagnosis codes and the likelihood of the adverse health outcome; determining a risk score for each patient within the panel of patients based on the rank order correlation of at least one of the diagnosis codes, the lab values or the vital signs; lowering a timeframe to a lowered timeframe for allocating healthcare resources for the patient, in response to the risk score for the patient being higher than other risk scores for other patients in the panel of patients; and setting the lowered timeframe, in response to the allocating the healthcare resources in the context of this claim encompasses the observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion of patient health data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, the limitations of receiving, converting, and storing diagnosis codes, along with the determining a rank order correlation, a risk score, and lowering and setting a timeframe based on risk scores and resource allocation are directed to rules and instructions for managing personal behavior or interactions between people such that the claim is also directed to the abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the above bolded additional elements of, for example, “by a computer,” “a database,” and “file systems,” to perform the claim limitations. The additional element in each step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a computer/remote device including a processor and a memory such as a personal computer, laptops, notebooks, tablets, smartphones, or any other device capable of receiving data over a network with a display interface that forwards graphics, text, and other data, and any database may include relational, hierarchical, graphical, blockchain, object-oriented structure, and/or any other database configurations for storing/obtaining data as they relate to general purpose computer components (Application Specification [0055], [0077], [0078], [0084], [0092])). As such, the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The additional elements of “placing, by the computer, frequently used files containing the rank order correlation on separate file systems to reduce in and out bottlenecks and to optimize performance of the database; designating, by the computer, a key field in a plurality of related data tables to speed searching for the rank order correlation; merging, by the computer, the plurality of related data tables based on a type of the rank order correlations in the key field,” recites a designation for particular data storage amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 above bolded additional elements of performing the claim limitations ““by a computer,” “a database,” and “file systems,” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (i.e., a computer/remote device including a processor and a memory such as a personal computer, laptops, notebooks, tablets, smartphones, or any other device capable of receiving data over a network with a display interface that forwards graphics, text, and other data, and any database may include relational, hierarchical, graphical, blockchain, object-oriented structure, and/or any other database configurations for storing/obtaining data as they relate to general purpose computer components (Application Specification [0055], [0077], [0078], [0084], [0092])). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or other machinery in its ordinary capacity cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The additional elements of “placing, by the computer, frequently used files containing the rank order correlation on separate file systems to reduce in and out bottlenecks and to optimize performance of the database; designating, by the computer, a key field in a plurality of related data tables to speed searching for the rank order correlation; merging, by the computer, the plurality of related data tables based on a type of the rank order correlations in the key field,” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d); Application Specification at [0094]-[0095] (“Association of certain data may be accomplished through any desired data association technique such as those known or practiced in the art. For example, the association may be accomplished either manually or automatically. Automatic association techniques may include, for example, a database search, a database merge, GREP, AGREP, SQL, using a key field in the tables to speed searches, sequential searches through all the tables and files, sorting records in the file according to a known order to simplify lookup, and/or the like. The association step may be accomplished by a database merge function, for example, using a "key field" in pre-selected databases or data sectors. Various database tuning steps are contemplated to optimize database performance. For example, frequently used files such as indexes may be placed on separate file systems to reduce In/Out ("I/O") bottlenecks.”); See also US 20150088545 A1 (“Association of certain data may be accomplished through any desired data association technique such as those known or practiced in the art. … using a key field in the tables to speed searches … indexing frequently used files and placing on separate files systems to reduce Input/Output (“I/O”) bottlenecks.” at [0050]). Therefore, these additional element of the claim are described as being known techniques practiced in the art. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-19 include limitations of the independent claim and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein. The dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. These additional claims recite what the patient health data is and how it is analyzed. These information characteristics do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion of patient health data. Claim 3 recites the additional element of “receiving, by the computer, a signal from chart indicating that at least one of the chart was accessed by a healthcare provider or a note was written in the chart,” claim 7 recites “sending, by the computer, at least one of a notification,” and “a health app,” claim 9 recites “notifying, by the computer, one or more medical providers,” claim 11 recites “a display,” claim 15 recites “notifying, by the computer, one or more of the medical providers,” claim 16 recites “receiving a signal,” claim 18 recites “displaying, by the computer, on a screen.” The additional elements of notifying, sending, and receiving by a computer in claims 3, 7, 9, and 15-16 amounts to mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity; See MPEP 2106.05(g), and these additional elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The additional elements of a health app and display are recited at a high level as generic computer components used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e. a mobile application and graphical user interface) See Application Specification at [0075], [0110]; MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 20 is drawn to a system for determining care based on a patient risk score, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Independent Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 20 recites:
20. A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more tangible, non-transitory memories configured to communicate with the one or more processors, the one or more tangible, non-transitory memories having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
determining, by the one or more processors, a
wherein each of the patients within the subset of patients are within a panel of patients from a panel for a particular provider,
wherein the subset of the patients have a likelihood of an adverse health outcome for each patient within the panel of patients, and
wherein the first rank order correlation determines a statistical dependence between a ranking of the diagnosis codes and the likelihood of the adverse health outcome
storing, by the one or more processors, the rank order correlation in a database;
placing, by the one or more processors, frequently used files containing the rank order correlation on separate file systems to reduce in and out bottlenecks and to optimize performance of the database;
designating, by the one or more processors, a key field in a plurality of related data tables to speed searching for the rank order correlation;
merging, by the one or more processors, the plurality of related data tables based on a type of the rank order correlations in the key field;
obtaining, by the one or more processors, the rank order correlation from the database;
determining, by the one or more processors, a risk score for each patient within the panel of patients based on the rank order correlation from the database of at least one of the diagnosis codes, the lab values or the vital signs,
lowering, by the one or more processors, a timeframe to a lowered timeframe for allocating healthcare resources for the patient, in response to the risk score for the patient being higher than other risk scores for other patients in the panel of patients; and
setting, by the one or more processors, the lowered timeframe, in response to the allocating the healthcare resources.
The claim limitations, as drafted, is a machine that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors; and one or more tangible, non-transitory memories configured to communicate with the one or more processors, the one or more tangible, non-transitory memories having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations,” “a database,” and “file systems,” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the above bolded language, determining a rank order correlation of variables of patient health data comprising at least one of diagnosis codes, lab values or vital signs common to a subset of patients, wherein each of the patients within the subset of patients are within a panel of patients from a panel for a particular provider, wherein the subset of the patients have a likelihood of an adverse health outcome for each patient within the panel of patients, and wherein the rank order correlation determines a statistical dependence between a ranking of the diagnosis codes and the likelihood of the adverse health outcome; determining a risk score for each patient within the panel of patients based on the rank order correlation of at least one of the diagnosis codes, the lab values or the vital signs; lowering a timeframe to a lowered timeframe for allocating healthcare resources for the patient, in response to the risk score for the patient being higher than other risk scores for other patients in the panel of patients; and setting the lowered timeframe, in response to the allocating the healthcare resources in the context of this claim encompasses the observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion of patient health data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, the limitations of receiving, converting, and storing diagnosis codes, along with the determining a rank order correlation, a risk score, and lowering and setting a timeframe based on risk scores and resource allocation are directed to rules and instructions for managing personal behavior or interactions between people such that the claim is also directed to the abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements of, for example, “one or more processors; and one or more tangible, non-transitory memories configured to communicate with the one or more processors, the one or more tangible, non-transitory memories having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations,” “a database,” and “file systems,” to perform the claim limitations. The additional element in each step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a computer/remote device including a processor and a memory such as a personal computer, laptops, notebooks, tablets, smartphones, or any other device capable of receiving data over a network with a display interface that forwards graphics, text, and other data, and any database may include relational, hierarchical, graphical, blockchain, object-oriented structure, and/or any other database configurations for storing/obtaining data as they relate to general purpose computer components (Application Specification [0055], [0077], [0078], [0084], [0092])). As such, the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The additional elements of “placing, by the computer, frequently used files containing the rank order correlation on separate file systems to reduce in and out bottlenecks and to optimize performance of the database; designating, by the computer, a key field in a plurality of related data tables to speed searching for the rank order correlation; merging, by the computer, the plurality of related data tables based on a type of the rank order correlations in the key field,” recites a designation for particular data storage amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 above bolded additional elements of using, for example, “one or more processors; and one or more tangible, non-transitory memories configured to communicate with the one or more processors, the one or more tangible, non-transitory memories having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations,” “a database,” and “file systems,” to perform the claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (i.e., a computer/remote device including a processor and a memory such as a personal computer, laptops, notebooks, tablets, smartphones, or any other device capable of receiving data over a network with a display interface that forwards graphics, text, and other data, and any database may include relational, hierarchical, graphical, blockchain, object-oriented structure, and/or any other database configurations for storing/obtaining data as they relate to general purpose computer components (Application Specification [0055], [0077], [0078], [0084], [0092])). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or other machinery in its ordinary capacity cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The additional elements of “placing, by the computer, frequently used files containing the rank order correlation on separate file systems to reduce in and out bottlenecks and to optimize performance of the database; designating, by the computer, a key field in a plurality of related data tables to speed searching for the rank order correlation; merging, by the computer, the plurality of related data tables based on a type of the rank order correlations in the key field,” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d); Application Specification at [0094]-[0095] (“Association of certain data may be accomplished through any desired data association technique such as those known or practiced in the art. For example, the association may be accomplished either manually or automatically. Automatic association techniques may include, for example, a database search, a database merge, GREP, AGREP, SQL, using a key field in the tables to speed searches, sequential searches through all the tables and files, sorting records in the file according to a known order to simplify lookup, and/or the like. The association step may be accomplished by a database merge function, for example, using a "key field" in pre-selected databases or data sectors. Various database tuning steps are contemplated to optimize database performance. For example, frequently used files such as indexes may be placed on separate file systems to reduce In/Out ("I/O") bottlenecks.”); See also US 20150088545 A1 (“Association of certain data may be accomplished through any desired data association technique such as those known or practiced in the art. … using a key field in the tables to speed searches … indexing frequently used files and placing on separate files systems to reduce Input/Output (“I/O”) bottlenecks.” at [0050]). Therefore, these additional element of the claim are described as being known techniques practiced in the art. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed on 05/14/2026.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that:
Regarding the 101 rejection of claims 1-20, Applicant argues that the claims are analogous to Example 37 of the Patent Eligibility Guidance.
In response to Applicant’s argument (a) regarding the 101 rejection, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the technical step of placing frequently used files on separate file systems is integral to the claimed invention as an improvement to a technical field. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully submits that the additional elements of “placing, by the computer, frequently used files containing the rank order correlation on separate file systems to reduce in and out bottlenecks and to optimize performance of the database; designating, by the computer, a key field in a plurality of related data tables to speed searching for the rank order correlation; merging, by the computer, the plurality of related data tables based on a type of the rank order correlations in the key field,” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). First, the present Application Specification at [0094]-[0095] explicitly states “[a]ssociation of certain data may be accomplished through any desired data association technique such as those known or practiced in the art. For example, the association may be accomplished either manually or automatically. Automatic association techniques may include, for example, a database search, a database merge, GREP, AGREP, SQL, using a key field in the tables to speed searches, sequential searches through all the tables and files, sorting records in the file according to a known order to simplify lookup, and/or the like. The association step may be accomplished by a database merge function, for example, using a "key field" in pre-selected databases or data sectors. Various database tuning steps are contemplated to optimize database performance. For example, frequently used files such as indexes may be placed on separate file systems to reduce In/Out ("I/O") bottlenecks.”) (emphasis added for clarity). Further, beyond the explicit statement of data association of key fields being a known technique in the art, this is further supported in the prior. See also US 20150088545 A1 (“Association of certain data may be accomplished through any desired data association technique such as those known or practiced in the art. … using a key field in the tables to speed searches … indexing frequently used files and placing on separate files systems to reduce Input/Output (“I/O”) bottlenecks.” at [0050]). Therefore, these additional element of the claim are described as being known techniques practiced in the art and do not constitute and improvement to the functioning of a computer or technical field such that the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole, fail to integrate the claims into a practical application nor recite significantly more than the abstract idea(s).
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the 101 rejection of claims 1-20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0136286 A1 teaches icons may be arranged by size, in which file folders are listed initially, followed by individual files ordered according to size and starting at 0 KB. When shown in groups, in order of display the groups are `zero` (i.e. 0 KB), `tiny` (e.g. 1 KB-39 KB), `small` (e.g. 40 KB-129 KB), `medium` (eg. 130-1299 KB), `large` (>1300 KB) ([0008]);
U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2011/0285665 A1 teaches the icons 12a, 12b, 12c, 12d, 12e, and 12f are displayed on the display panel 13 arranged in an order of priority recorded in the icon information memory unit 20 on a side nearer to the finger 30. In other words, in the present first embodiment, the icon 12a has the highest priority, followed in sequence by the icons 12b and 12c, and then the icons 12d, 12e, and 12f. Priorities may be arbitrarily set by the user or automatically set such that the greater the number of times an icon is selected by the user, the higher the priority of the icon ([0126]);
U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2013/0181941 A1 teaches a controller displays on the touch panel a list in which the above icons are sorted in order of highest usage frequency ([0152]);
U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0051389 A1 teaches the system may compare metrics of the provider’s panels to other providers in a health care organization and determine a complexity score for the patient’s stated and/or weighted patient panel and may compare the complexity score to the scores of the other providers ([0070]);
U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2014/0108044 A1 teaches obtaining patient information such as vitals, lab results, diagnosis codes, etc.; predetermined disease models are applied to the clinical data related to calculate a health risk score; the health risk score is calculated by the sum total of the calculated values comparing diagnosis of a condition by a correlation value of the condition for a patient e.g. diabetes, the lab values of the patient by a correlation value of the lab value e.g. LDL-C, and the vitals of the patient by a correlation value of the vitals e.g. blood pressure ([0040]-[0050]. [0058], [0061], Fig 3);
U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2013/0030260 A1 teaches a patient health assessment may be generated and presented, i.e. as a patient report card with take action steps such as eat a healthy diet, maintain a healthy weight, be physically active, get plenty of fiber in your diet, avoid saturated fat, etc. ([0026], Fig 2a-b);
U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2015/0066521 A1 teaches a patient length of stay includes a timer to alert the clinician if a threshold has been exceeded for the patient ([0012]);
U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2022/0341951 A1 the scheduler sends a notification to a patient user in the form of a calendar appointment that is automatically added to the patient user’s calendar by the Schedular ([0270]);
U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2021/0193324 A1 teaches weighing parameters of patient information to generate patient scores according to their risk (Abstract); and
U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2015/0193588 A1 teaches an analysis corresponding to a plurality of users to determine a future health risk (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY BALAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-8181. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 M-F.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/A.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/FONYA M LONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights