DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the present application filed on 05/27/2025.
Claims 1, 4, 12, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11-12, and 15-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a data extractor and consolidator configured to extract practice management data including at least financial information, human resource information, patient information, and medical information relating to clinical and operational aspects of the practice and corporate data; (Claim 1)
a data mapping component on a cloud infrastructure configured to map the extracted practice management data into at least one normalized data set; (Claim 1)
a transactional processing component of the cloud infrastructure configured to process and store transactional data from the extracted practice management data; (Claim 1)
an interface component, wherein the interface component is configured to display a result of the output including the determined performance measure; (Claim 1)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
a data extractor and consolidator is being interpreted as the PMS data extractor and consolidator (Element 122, Fig. 1);
a data mapping component of the cloud infrastructure configured to map the extracted practice management data into at least one normalized data set is being interpreted as providing data mapping functions from the received practice management data 203 information that may be consumed and processed by the system 201… may map extracted practice management data into at least one normalized data set…may utilize translation logic and reference data to map the extracted practice management data (p. 15, para. 0003, Fig. 2A);
a transactional processing component of the cloud infrastructure configured to process and store transactional data is being interpreted as element 210 Fig. 2A… the system may be used to manage practices in a real time manner using real-time transactional data (p. 16, ¶ 0002, Fig. 2A);
an interface component, wherein the interface component is configured to display a result of the output is interpreted as interface 500 (Fig. 5).
Therefore, the claim limitations will be interpreted to be a hardware and software computer program (see MPEP § 2181(II}(B) wherein when the supporting disclosure for a computer-implemented invention discusses the implementation of the functionality of the invention through hardware, software, or a combination of both, a question can arise as to which mode of implementation supports the means-plus-function limitation. The language of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) requires that the recited "means" for performing the specified function shall be construed to cover the corresponding "structure or material" described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Therefore, by choosing to use a means-plus-function limitation and invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f} applicant limits that claim limitation to the disclosed structure, i.e., implementation by hardware or the combination of hardware and software, and equivalents thereof. Therefore, the examiner should not construe the limitation as covering pure software implementation).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to for stating “the cloud infrastructure database”. This limitation lacks consistency in terminology. For the purpose of compact prosecution, The Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the cloud infrastructure”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites “interfacing with existing ones”. This limitation is indefinite as there is no indication in the claim what “ones” refers to. For the sake of compact prosecution, and based on the limitation of Claim 6, the Examiner will interpret the claim to be “an act of a plurality of components interfacing with existing ones or the one or more practice management data sources”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-9, 11-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, abstract idea, or a natural phenomenon) without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis:
Independent Claims 1 and 12 recite a system and method respectively and therefore fall into one of the four statutory categories. Dependent Claims 4-9 and 11 recite a system, and Claims 15-20 recite a method; thus, the dependent claims also fall into one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Analysis- Prong One:
The substantially similar independent system and method claims, taking Claim 1 as exemplary, recite the following:
A distributed computer system comprising: a data extractor and consolidator configured to extract practice management data including at least financial information, human resource information, patient information, and medical information related to clinical and operational aspects of the practice and corporate data from one or more practice management data sources relating to a practice being evaluated to a cloud infrastructure;
a data mapping component of the cloud infrastructure configured to map the extracted practice management data into at least one normalized data set, wherein the data mapping component uses at least one of translational logic and reference data to map the extracted practice management data into at least one normalized data set,
wherein the data mapping component automatically applies the translational logic to transform heterogeneous data formats from multiple disparate practice management systems into a standardized schema stored in the cloud infrastructure database;
a transactional processing component of the cloud infrastructure configured to process and store transactional data from the extracted practice management data, wherein the transactional data and the at least one normalized data set are stored in a database;
an analytics engine, wherein the analytics engine receives the normalized data set and transactional data and outputs at least one metric, wherein the at least one metric is configured to determine a performance measure including at least one of financial performance, human resource performance, patient performance, and medical performance of the practice being evaluated,
and wherein the analytics engine performs cross-practice benchmarking by comparing the performance measure against historical data from multiple practices to generate actionable recommendations;
an interface component, wherein the interface component is configured to display a result of the output including the determined performance measure.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions- in this case, extracting, mapping, and processing and storing, analyzing, and determining a performance measure of data), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements”, and will be discussed further below.
Dependent Claims 4-5, 7, 8-9, 11, 16, and 18-20 include other abstract limitations. For example, Claims 4 and 15 recite outputting the performance measure, Claims 5 and 16 recite types of users, Claims 7 and 18 recite the types of performance measures that can be utilized, Claims 8 and 19 recite the performance measure of the practice comprising at least one of a root cause, plan information, or progress toward a target, Claim 9 recites the performance measure being determines across multiple practices, Claims 11 and 20 recite visualizing the performance measure with a chart, plot, or table. These limitations only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, see MPEP 2106.04, and/or do not further narrow the abstract idea and instead only recite additional elements, which will be further addressed below. Hence, dependent Claims 4-5, 7, 8-9, 11, 16, and 18-20 are nonetheless directed toward fundamentally the same abstract ideas of Claims 1 and 12 and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A Analysis- Prong Two:
Claims 1 and 12 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the computer system, data extractor and consolidator, data mapping component, transactional processing component, analytics engine, cloud infrastructure database, and interface component of Claim 1 and the data extractor and consolidator, data mapping component, cloud infrastructure database, transactional processing component, analytics engine, and interface component of Claim 12) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. For example, Applicant’s specification explains data from the PMS is extracted and normalized (e.g., via a 3rd party (PIMS) data extractor and consolidator 122) at a regular interval (e.g., daily) and staged in the cloud to be consumed by ecosystem applications (p. 12, ¶ 0004). Data collected and/or received from the practice software may be extracted and normalized at a regular interval (e.g., daily) or on demand. In some embodiments, practice data may be extracted from the practice software and normalized by consolidator 852 (p. 23, ¶ 0005). The data mapping component 204 may map extracted practice management data into an analytics engine to be analyzed (p. 15, ¶ 0003). At block 224, the system may be configured to process and store transactional data associated with one or more transactions performed within the practice (p. 14, ¶ 0004). The ecosystem 100 may analyze the data to further inform managing users about the impact and effects of the decision/action 120, 134 (p. 15, ¶ 0001). A database of the collected data is used to store that data in a metadata configuration as an aspect of data analysis (p. 5, ¶ 0002). The system may include a number of interfaces and applications to be consumed by various user types and computing entities (e.g., other computer systems). For instance, the system may provide one or more interfaces for managing the various practices being managed within the ecosystem (p. 14, ¶ 0003). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the idea. Therefore, Claims 1 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea without practical application.
Additionally, dependent Claims 4, 6, 9, 11, 15, and 20 recite other additional elements, but these limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. Claims 4 and 15 recites the previously recited interface component and specifies the interface component outputs the performance measure to a user type or computing entity, Claim 6 recites a plurality of components (new elements) configured to interface with existing ones or the practice management data sources, Claim 9 recites the previously recited analytics engine and specifies the engine determines a performance measure across multiple practices. Claims 11 and 20 recite the previously recited interface component and recite the interface displays the results a chart, plot, or table. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claims, whether considered individually or in combination, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the computer system, data extractor and consolidator, cloud infrastructure, cloud infrastructure database, data mapping component, transactional processing component, analytics engine, and interface component of Claim 1 and the data extractor and consolidator, data mapping component, transactional processing component, cloud infrastructure, cloud infrastructure database, analytics engine, and interface component of Claim 12 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely stating “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the independent Claims 1 and 12 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 5, 7-8, 16, and 18-20 do not recite any additional elements and solely narrow the abstract idea. Claims 5 and 16 narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 by specifying the user types. Claims 7 and 18 recite the details regarding what the performance measures can include. Claims 8 and 19 recite the performance measure of the practice comprises root cause, plan information, and/or progress toward a target. Claims 11 and 20 recite the performance measure is displayed with a chart, plot, or table.
Dependent Claim 4, 15 recite previously recited additional elements, which are not eligible for the reasons stated above, and further narrow the abstract idea. Claims 4 and 15 recites the previously recited interface component and specifies the interface component outputs the performance measure to a user type or computing entity. Claim 9 recites the previously recited analytics engine and specifies the engine determines a performance measure across multiple practices. Claims 11 and 20 recite the previously recited interface component and recite the interface displays the results a chart, plot, or table
Dependent Claims 4, 6, 9, and 15 recite new additional elements with a new function. Claims 6 and 17 recite a plurality of components (new elements) configured to interface with existing ones or the practice management data sources. Hence, Claims 1, 4-9, 11-12, and 15-20 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything that is already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1, 4-9, 11-12, and 15-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns et al. (US 11232383 B1) in view of Zuzek et al. (US 20050154627 A1), Gupta et al. (US 20120131481 A1), and Huffman et al. (US 20150310362 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Burns discloses the following:
A distributed computer system comprising: (Burns discloses the invention illustrating a computer system, generally described as 800, having a network 810, a plurality of computing devices 820, 830, 840, a server 850, and a database 870 (col. 82, lines 4-8).)
a data extractor …configured to extract practice management data from one or more practice management data and corporate data sources relating to a practice being evaluated to a cloud infrastructure; (Burns discloses an automated analysis, evaluation, and assessment of technology,…and opportunity for new business ventures and investment (col. 4, lines 44-47). The data repository … is referred to as the Quantum Execution (QuantumX) datastore, as illustrated in Fig. 26. The QuantumX datastore captures TO [transformative organization] data from instrumented TCF work systems. This data is acted upon by nearly all of the TILLER logic elements: scoring, alerting,…web mining (col. 69, lines 7-14). The at least one server platform is configured to receive input data from the at least one remote device, the web crawler, the web mining tool, and/or the at least one database… wherein the input data includes management data (col. 10, lines 2-5, 21-22). The TO data is interpreted as practice management data while the data source is interpreted as the TCF work systems. The present invention provides access… to the user via the GUI and cloud-based network (col. 42, lines, 36-28). The cloud-based network is interpreted as the cloud infrastructure.)
a data mapping component of the cloud infrastructure configured to map the extracted practice management data into at least one normalized data set,…; (Burns discloses the logic engine is designed to streamline the management system to automatically generate normalized, useful data to provide insights and alerts (col. 8, lines 63-65). The TCF scorecard is a key input for all TO governance evaluations. Every single field in the scorecard…is aligned to the Quantum Execution Plan… These values are available to the TMT [management team] in both raw format as well as in normalized format with logic applied (col. 5, lines 15-22). Further, TCF is a systems-engineering based method… fueled by…instrumented work systems that… automatically produce and harvest inherently normalized, quantifiable data (col. 42, lines 50-61). The data extracted from the TCF work system is further normalized. The present invention provides access… to the user via the GUI and cloud-based network (col. 42, lines, 36-28). The cloud-based network is interpreted as the cloud infrastructure.)
an analytics engine, wherein the analytics engine receives the normalized data set …; (Burns discloses the present invention is directed to automated work systems and methods for analyzing technology, intellectual property, markets, corporate management, and structure for commercialization for improved impact and return on investment (col. 22, lines 37-41). The system is further configured to automatically produce and harvest inherently normalized data, wherein the at least one server platform is configured to use the normalized data for a plurality of startup companies (col. 28, lines 1-4). The artificial intelligence engine analyzes time based trends against baselines to identify anomalies, repetitive error, performance of decision of the management team…(col. 92, lines 19-22). The artificial intelligence engine is interpreted as the analytics engine.)
…and outputs at least one metric, wherein the at least one metric is configured to determine a performance measure of the practice being evaluated. (Burns discloses evaluation metrics collected throughout the TCF process that provide performance quality indicators for each team member, which are used to quantify team member readiness (col. 44, lines 64-67).)
wherein the data mapping component automatically applies the translational logic to transform heterogeneous data formats from multiple disparate practice management systems into a standardized schema stored in the cloud infrastructure database; (Burns discloses a strategy engine may include strategic tools for pulling in data from various sources, visualizing, interacting with, capturing and synthesizing insights so as to facilitate strategic planning. An extract, transform, load (ETL) engine may extract data from outside sources, transform the data to fit operational requirements, and load the transformed data into to ODI data repository (col. 4, lines 4-10).)
…cross-practice…from multiple practices to generate actionable recommendations; (Burns discloses evaluation metrics collected throughout the TCF process that provide performance quality indicators for each team member, which are used to quantify team member readiness (col. 44, lines 64-67). The at least one server platform is configured to identify potential business partnerships, create a production and supply strategy, determine the cost efficiency of manufacturing, and provide a plurality of financial management recommendations and projections related to the startup company's and/or the plurality of startup companies' market and technology (col. 11, lines 9-15). Further, success is determined at least by factors including revenue, revenue growth, profit,… (col. 41, lines 37-38).)
an interface component, wherein the interface component is configured to display a result of the output including the determined performance measure (Burns discloses Fig. 18 further illustrates data flow from the phase-relevant metrics to the data repository with the outputted data being displayed on a dashboard (col. 58, lines 3-5).)
Burns is silent regarding the following limitations met by Zuzek:
…including at least financial information,…patient information, and medical information relating to clinical and operational aspects of the practice (Zuzek teaches predicting the future cost of treating an individual user having a primary illness;…[0041]. The Examiner interprets these factors as being financial information. Each data file contains the source's transactional data including an anonymous patient identification reference. In the preferred embodiment, the patient identification reference is an assigned number for keeping track of patient history at each facility [0021]. The Examiner interprets patient history as being patient information. A direct connection communication link may be preferable when dealing with confidential information such as prescription and medical data…[0107].)
a component configured to process and store transactional data from the extracted practice management data; (Zuzek teaches the transactional data is gathered, formatted, cleaned, compressed, processed, analyzed and stored in a database as part of a data transformation process utilizing various software algorithms [0018].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and methods for extracting, normalizing, and analyzing of business data to determine the performance of the business as disclosed by Burns to incorporate the processing, storing, and analysis of transactional data, specifically for healthcare applications, as taught by Zuzek. This modification would create a system and methods which is capable of organizing, analyzing, and storing a large volume of transactional data to assist in automating the healthcare process and assisting physicians in decision making (see Zuzek, ¶ 0001, 0003).
Burns and Zuzek do not teach the use of consolidation of the data in accordance with the extraction as well as mapping using reference data. These limitations are met by Gupta:
Data extractor and consolidator (Gupta teaches the discovery/analyzer tool 310 may extract data from a plurality of data sources 105, providing data to the transformation facility 210 that is to be normalized, cleansed, masked, and/or consolidated [0022].)
wherein the data mapping component uses at least one of translational logic and reference data to map the… data set (Gupta teaches the cross-reference data 220, 225, 230 may further include information for data mapping [0018]. )
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and methods for extracting, normalizing, and analyzing of business data to determine the performance of the business as disclosed by Burns to incorporate the consolidation of the extracted data and the use of reference data for mapping as taught by Gupta. This modification would create a system and methods which is capable of dynamically de-identifying or masking data upon discovery while preserving data usability across software applications (see Gupta, ¶ 0002, 0005).
Burns, Zuzek, and Gupta do not teach the following limitations met by Huffman:
…human resource information,… (Huffman teaches some examples of data to be consumed, normalized and persisted through the data aggregator 220 comprise:… Human resources…[0068-85].)
wherein the analytics engine performs…benchmarking by comparing the performance measure against historical data… (Huffman teaches by using the techniques disclosed herein, any of the performing resources can be evaluated against retrospective performance to determine if a particular proposed resource allocation achieved better performance (e.g. throughput, utilization) as compared to historical norms [0121].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and methods for extracting, normalizing, and analyzing of business data to determine the performance of the business as disclosed by Burns to incorporate the use of human resource information as well as benchmarking as taught by Huffman. This modification would create a system and method providing an improved approach for measuring productivity in the healthcare environment (see Huffman, ¶ 0003-4).
Regarding Claim 12, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 1 above; thus the same rejection applies. Burns further discloses:
A method for managing practice data (Burns discloses methods to model, manage, and measure all data of the management system (col. 8, lines 57-59).)
Regarding Claim 4, Burns, Zuzek, Gupta, and Huffman teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 3 above. Burns discloses the following:
wherein the interface component is configured to output the performance measure to at least one user type or computing entity. (Burns discloses at least one remote device including a graphical user interface (GUI), wherein the at least one server platform includes at least one set of parameters (col. 14, lines 44-47). At least one server platform is configured to generate a plurality of outputs, wherein the plurality of outputs… support control of risk, cost (col. 23, lines 62-67). The present invention enables a user to collect the data from the cloud-based system and display the data via the GUI on a remote device (col. 49, lines 56-58).)
Regarding Claim 15, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 4 above; thus the same rejection applies.
Regarding Claim 5, Burns, Zuzek, Gupta, and Huffman teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 4 above. Burns discloses the following:
the at least one user type comprises at least one of a group of user types including: a practice management user; an outside evaluator user evaluating the practice being evaluated; and an employee user of the practice being evaluated (Burns discloses the assignment input includes at least one new assignment for the management team and/or the startup company's and/or plurality of startup companies' employees (Col. 20, lines 2-6).)
Regarding Claim 16, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 5 above; thus the same rejection applies.
Regarding Claim 6, Burns, Zuzek, Gupta, and Huffman teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Burns discloses the following:
further comprising a plurality of components that interface with existing ones or the one or more practice management data sources. (Burns discloses computing devices are operable to communicate communication media through wired networks…The network interface unit 896 is operable to provide for communications under various modes or protocols (col. 83, lines 34-42).)
Regarding Claim 17, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 6 above; thus the same rejection applies.
Regarding Claim 8, Burns, Zuzek, Gupta, and Huffman teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Burns, Zuzek, and Gupta do not teach the following limitations met by Huffman:
wherein the performance measure of the practice being evaluated further comprises at least one of a group including root cause, plan information, and progress toward a target. (Huffman teaches the data access module 330 persists all operational data about the progress of the workflow that is available (e.g., status change times, exam access, open and close times, etc.). The client application module 212 includes configured agents and interfaces for individuals to monitor the current status of any in-progress workflows in the system. These agents can be used for an individual to track their progress through the day, or to track the workload on a department, or track the status of any monitored resource in any workflow within the system [0235].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and methods for extracting, normalizing, and analyzing of business data to determine the performance of the business as disclosed by Burns to incorporate evaluating the progress toward a target as taught by Huffman. This modification would create a system and method providing an improved approach for measuring productivity in the healthcare environment (see Huffman, ¶ 0003-4).
Regarding Claim 19, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 8 above; thus the same rejection applies.
Regarding Claim 9, Burns, Zuzek, Gupta, and Huffman teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Burns further discloses:
wherein the analytics engine is configured to determine a performance measure (Burns discloses The artificial intelligence engine analyzes time based trends against baselines to identify anomalies, repetitive error, performance of decision of the management team…(col. 92, lines 19-22). The artificial intelligence engine is interpreted as the analytics engine.)
Burns, Zuzek, and Gupta do not teach the performance measure being determined across multiple practices which is met by Huffman:
[the performance measure] …across multiple practices. (Huffman a comparison of real-time performance characteristics against the retrospective model can determine bottlenecks or other inefficiencies in the current performance of users, departments, or the institution overall [0038]. Only a few institutions have designed integrated sets of procedures to govern the work performed across departmental boundaries,… [0024]. Analyzing multiple departments is interpreted as multiple practices.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and methods for extracting, normalizing, and analyzing of business data to determine the performance of the business as disclosed by Burns to incorporate an assessment across multiple practices as taught by Huffman. This modification would create a system and method providing an improved approach for measuring productivity in the healthcare environment (see Huffman, ¶ 0003-4).
Regarding Claim 11, Burns, Zuzek, Gupta, and Huffman teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Burns does not disclose the following limitations met by Zuzek:
wherein the interface component is configured to display the result using at least one of a group including a chart, plot, or table (Zuzek teaches the user-interface is displayed on a client Web portal or administration portal which includes any type of monitor that supports a web browser, including but not limited to a desktop personal computer, laptop, personal digital assistant, etc. [0020]. Reports are provided in the form of charts, tables, graphs, statistical results, share percentages, etc. [0040].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and methods for extracting, normalizing, and analyzing business data to determine the performance of the business as disclosed by Burns to incorporate the visualization of data with graphs, tables, and charts as taught by Zuzek. This modification would create a system and methods which would provide the user with their own viewing option for the data and thus improve usability (see Zuzek, ¶ 0175).
Regarding Claim 20, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 11 above; thus the same rejection applies.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns, Zuzek, Gupta, and Huffman further in view of Mabari et al. (US 20120095798 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Burns, Zuzek, Gupta, and Huffman teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Burns, Zuzek, Gupta, and Huffman do not teach the following limitations met by Mabari:
wherein the performance measure of the practice being evaluated further comprises at least one of a group including: an employee experience index; a client experience index; a financial index; a labor index; an inventory index; a volume index; and a revenue index. (Mabari teaches FIG. 24 shows one embodiment of an inventory index that is available through the user interface 58 (FIG. 2). As shown, the index shows the inventory levels associated with a single vender, "Vendor 1." In this regard, the inventory index shows inventory levels and usages for particular marketing communications projects that have been sent to Vender 1 [0125, Fig. 24].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and methods for extracting, normalizing, and analyzing business data to determine the performance of the business as disclosed by Burns to incorporate the use of an inventory index as taught by Mabari. This modification would create a system and methods capable of improving coordination and workflow to enhance effectiveness, accuracy, and regulatory compliance of a medical setting (see Mabari, ¶ 0002).
Regarding Claim 18, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 7 above; thus the same rejection applies.
Relevant Prior Art of Record Not Currently Being Applied
The following prior art is made of record and not currently relied upon but is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Crabtree et al. (US 20210258349 A1) teaches data extraction, processing, and management to determine a performance rating of the data of interest.
Siegrist et al. (US 5652842) teaches comparison of competitive performance of different hospitals and providers.
Cleland et al. (US 20120209664 A1) teaches systems and methods for processing transactional data to provide a retrospective view as to the performance of a business.
Farooq et al. (US 20190332978 A1) teaches generating and dynamically displaying performance measures.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to Claims 1 and 12, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. If Applicant does not wish to have the claims interpreted under 112(f), the claim language must be changed to provide a structure for the identified elements in the claims, not in the specification/drawings. It is further noted that the 112(f) claim interpretation is not a rejection, but a notice that the claim language utilized was interpreted as invoking 112(f).
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 to Claims 1, 4-9, 12, 15, and 20, Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated in light of the amendments.
Applicant argues the “data mapping component automatically applies the translational logic to transform heterogeneous data formats from multiple disparate practice management systems into a standardized schema stored in the cloud infrastructure database" as recited by amended claims 1 and 12 addresses a specific technical problem in computer systems. The specification states "The one or more computer programs define a system architecture that allows for onboarding of any information of interest, regardless of particular format of that information. Individual practices are therefore not required to adopt specific new or different platforms and/or applications for the benefit of group management. In some embodiments, the system is agnostic with respect to individual practice system usage, and disparate internal core systems." The specification further explains that "these microservices abstract integration between software system by centrally housing translation logic and reference data as configuration, thereby making resultant platform a plug and play software platform." This limitation goes beyond generic computer functionality by specifying automatic transformation of heterogeneous data formats from multiple disparate systems into a standardized schema. This addresses the technical challenge of data interoperability across incompatible systems and provides a specific technical solution that improves computer functionality by enabling seamless integration of disparate practice management systems (see Applicant’s Remarks, p. 9).
Regarding (a), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations argued above of “data mapping component automatically applies the translational logic to transform heterogeneous data formats from multiple disparate practice management systems into a standardized schema stored in the cloud infrastructure database" are still a part of the abstract idea as they could be carried out by a person with a generic computer. An abstract idea cannot provide a practical application in Step 2A Prong 2 or “significantly more” in Step 2B analysis.
Assuming, arguendo, that the that this claim limitation is a technological limitation, it is still recited at a high level of generality. There is no detail to how the system automatically applies the translational logic to transform the data. MPEP 2106.05(f) states when determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The claims appear to merely recite the solution with no details of how this solution is reached.
Further, the claims are not analogous to Example 42, Claim 1 of the USPTO Guidance because in the example, the purpose of the invention is to standardize patient information on a server which is dependent on the hardware and software platform. Further, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. By contrast, the instant claims do not specify that the invention is dependent on hardware and software, and the claims do not output information in real time.
Applicant argues the analytics engine performs cross-practice benchmarking by comparing the performance measure against historical data to generate actionable recommendations. This limitation specifies a particular analytics methodology that generates actionable recommendations through cross practice comparison, which is a specific technical improvement to analytics engine functionality rather than merely applying generic computer processing to abstract data analysis (p. 9-10).
Regarding (b), Examiner respectfully disagrees. This limitation cannot provide a practical application in Step 2A Prong 2 or significantly more in Step 2B because, as shown in the 101 rejection above, the limitation is entirely directed to the abstract idea identified in Step 2A Prong 1.
Applicant argues the "practice management data including at least financial information, human resource information, patient information, and medical information relating to clinical and operational aspects of the practice" specifies particular types of integrated data that must be processed together. This integration of clinical and operational data creates technical challenges that require specific solutions for data normalization, processing, and analysis across disparate healthcare information systems (p. 10).
Regarding (c), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation argued above is entirely directed to the abstract idea identified in Step 2A Prong 1 and therefore cannot provide a practical application in Step 2A Prong 2 or significantly more in Step 2B analysis.
Applicant argues the "performance measure including at least one of financial performance, human resource performance, patient performance, and medical performance" as recited by amended claims 1 and 12 addresses the technical problem of integrating multiple types of performance analytics. The specification explains that "For multiparameter analysis, associated metrics may be grouped into department indices. Based on importance and impact, metrics may be weighted, and algorithms are provided that define how metrics perform to benchmarks. In some embodiments, these indices provide rapid visualization of associated metrics with predefined algorithms for consistent benchmarking across business and clinical teams." The integration of these diverse performance measures requires specific technical solutions for data correlation, weighting algorithms, and benchmarking across different performance domains (p. 11).
Regarding (d), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation argued above of the performance measures is entirely directed to the abstract idea identified in Step 2A Prong 1 and therefore cannot provide a practical application in Step 2A Prong 2 or significantly more in Step 2B analysis. Furthermore, Examiner notes that such performance measure feature is well known in the art and is not an unconventional solution to a technological problem. For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear (Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty". Here, the Applicant’s argued problem of integrating diverse performance measures is not a technical problem because it is not a problem caused by the computer/server. The identified problem existed regardless of whether a computer is involved in the process. At best, Applicant’s identified problem is a record/data management problem. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application.
Applicant argues the amended claims improve computer technology by providing specific solutions to technical problems in data integration, format transformation, and cross-system analytics. The automatic application of translational logic to transform heterogeneous data formats addresses the technical challenge of system interoperability. The cross-practice benchmarking with actionable recommendations provides a specific improvement to analytics engine functionality. These limitations impose meaningful restrictions on the abstract idea and integrate it into a practical application that improves computer functionality. Applicant submits that the amended claims satisfy the requirements for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are integrated into a practical application that improves the functioning of computer systems and provides significantly more than the judicial exception. The specific technical limitations recited in the amended claims address concrete technical problems and provide specific technical solutions that go well beyond generic computer implementation of abstract ideas (p. 11).
Regarding (e), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Different organizations use different forms or formats to organize information is a problem predating computers. So while this is a challenge, it is not a technical problem.
Here, the claims do not show how the performance measure and cross-practice benchmarking of the analytics engine improve on the functionality of the device. On review of the Specification, the present invention generically compares the data to benchmark data (which does not include any additional elements and only abstract ideas) (Detailed Description in p. 35, ¶ 0004). It is unclear to Examiner how the specific additional elements, alone or in combination, provide a solution to the stated problem in context of the abstract idea of detecting a deviation in expected operation of the medical device. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art (MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Additionally, an important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03 (MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II)). The instant claims seem analogous to MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II) examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology, example iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding the newly added limitations not being taught by Burns and Zuzek, and Gupta; however, the arguments are moot because upon further consideration, a new ground for rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments have been made, rejecting the claims over Burns in view of Zuzek, Gupta, and Huffman.
Further, Applicant’s arguments regarding Bargnes are moot, as the rejection has been changed, rejecting Claims 7 and 18 over Burns in view of Zuzek, Gupta, and Huffman, further in view of Mabari.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA R GEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0944. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter H Choi can be reached on (469)295-9171. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OLIVIA R. GEDRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681