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 Claims
In reply filed on 28 October 2025 the following changes have been made: amendments to claims 1-2, 15-16, and 20.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the
invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 15, and 20 contain the recitations “by a first filtering subsystem” and “by a second filtering subsystem.” Examiner points out [0027] in parallel with Figure 1 shows that one subsystem of care management platform called the real-time provider intelligence system of the care management platform that “performs a series of filtering and sorting of the previously extracted data.” Applicant’s recitation of two subsystems constituting both a first filtering subsystem and a second filtering subsystem of the care management platform that performs the filtering appears to constitute new matter. MPEP 2163 notes, “The proscription against the introduction of new matter in a patent application (35 U.S.C. 132 and 251) serves to prevent an applicant from adding information that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981); see also MPEP §§ 2163.06 through 2163.07 for a more detailed discussion of the written description requirement and its relationship to new matter.” Accordingly, a rejection for addition of new matter is necessary. The remaining dependent claims incorporate the deficiency of the independent claims and are rejected for the same reason.
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 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1-14), article of manufacture (claims 15-19), and machine (claim 20).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites steps of
receiving, by the care management platform from the user device, a request for patient records relevant to a patient, the request comprising a patient identifier (ID), a care provider identifier (ID), and a care provider context;
and
in response to the request for patient records:
generating, by the care management platform, a query that comprises the
patient ID from the received request as a search criteria of the query;
executing, by a search engine of the care management platform, the
query causing the search engine to access and search a patient data store for patient records that comprise the patient ID from the query;
receiving, by a first filtering subsystem of the care management platform from
the search engine, patient records returned in response to the querying;
performing, by the first filtering subsystem of the care management platform, a first filtering of the patient records returned in response to the querying, wherein the first filtering removes one or more the returned patient records that are not related to the care provider context using a deterministic rule-based filter executed by the first filtering subsystem to generate a first reduced set of patient records;
performing, by a second filtering subsystem of the care management platform, a second filtering of the patient records in the first reduced set of patient records, the second filtering using the first reduced set of patient records as input to a machine learning (ML) model that scores relevance of each of the first reduced set of patient records to the care provider context, and removing one or more patient records from the first reduced set of patient records based on the scores generated by the ML model to generate a final reduced set of patient records; and
transmitting, by the care management platform to the user device, a response comprising at least a subset of the final reduced set of patient records.
Claims 15 and 20 recite similar limitations as claim 1 but for the recitation of generic computer components.
These steps for querying, searching, and providing patient records, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the italicized portions from managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people by organizing the activity around querying, sorting/filtering, and conveying patient records. This could be analogized to manual file keeping operations. The italicized portion containing the recitation of using the first reduced set of patient records as input to a machine learning (ML) model that scores relevance of each of the first reduced set of patient records has been treated as part of the abstract idea, specifically as mathematical calculations (e.g., see [0029] disclosing ML methods such as decision trees that are known in the art to incorporate information theory and statistics like Entropy, Gini Impurity, and Information Gain) which falls within the abstract idea of mathematical concepts, in light of the 2024 USPTO AI Guidance. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as organizing human activity and mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements non-italicized portions identified above for claim 1, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as
recitation of by the care management platform from the user device; by the care management platform; by a search engine of the care management platform; causing the search engine; by a first filtering subsystem of the care management platform from the search engine; by the first filtering subsystem of the care management platform; using a deterministic rule-based filter executed by the first filtering subsystem; by a second filtering subsystem of the care management platform; by the ML model; by the care management platform to the user device; a non-transitory computer readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for a care management platform and a user device; and, a memory; and a processor coupled with the memory amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of receiving, […], a request for patient records relevant to a patient; and, receiving, […], patient records returned in response to the querying amounts to mere data gathering since it does not add meaningful limitations to the receiving actions performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Each of the above additional elements therefore only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computer components or other machines within their ordinary capacity, and also add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the above claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and also add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception in particular fields such as by the care management platform from the user device; by the care management platform; by a search engine of the care management platform; causing the search engine; by a first filtering subsystem of the care management platform from the search engine; by the first filtering subsystem of the care management platform; using a deterministic rule-based filter executed by the first filtering subsystem; by a second filtering subsystem of the care management platform; by the care management platform to the user device; a non-transitory computer readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for a care management platform and a user device; and, a memory; and a processor coupled with the memory, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f); also, by the ML model, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), MPEP 2106.05(f);
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as recitation of receiving, […], a request for patient records relevant to a patient; and, receiving, […], patient records returned in response to the querying, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
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 improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2-14 and 16-19 reciting particular aspects for querying, searching, and providing patient records such as
[Claim 2 & 16] wherein the method further comprises:
scoring, by the ML model, a relevancy of each of the patient records in the first reduced set of patient records based at least in part on the care provider context and zero or more unified medical language system (UMLS) concept unique identifiers (CUIs) mapped to one or more features of said each of the patient records; and
generating the final reduced set of patient records based on the scores associated with said each of the patient records generated by the ML model;
[Claim 3] wherein the final reduced set of patient records comprises a subset of the first reduced set of patient records, and each member selected for the subset is associated with a relevancy score satisfying a relevancy threshold;
[Claim 4] wherein the final reduced set of patient records comprises a subset of the first reduced set of patient records selected for having highest scores in the scoring of said each of the patient records;
[Claim 5 & 17] receiving, by the care management platform from the user device, user feedback regarding a patient record from the final reduced set of patient records, the feedback comprising positive or negative feedback of the relevancy of the patient record to the care provider context;
adding, by the care management platform, the feedback for the patient with the patient record and the provider context to an ML retraining data set for the ML model;
periodically retraining, by the care management platform, the ML model to generate a tuned ML model; and
using, by the care management platform, the tuned ML model when scoring a relevancy of patient records associated with a second request for patient records;
[Claim 6] wherein the user feedback is received by the care management platform from a graphical user interface rendered on the user device in response to a user selecting the patient record from within the graphical user interface, and wherein an application rendering the graphical user interface transmits the user feedback to the care management platform;
[Claim 7 & 18] receiving, at the care management platform from the user device, a user query for additional patient records, the query comprising: a keyword or natural language query, a patient ID, a care provider ID, and a care provider context;
executing, by the care management platform, the query against the patient data store for the additional patient records based on the patient ID, provider ID, and provider context;
selecting, by the care management platform, a subset of the additional patient records; and
transmitting, by the care management platform to the user device, the selected subset of the additional patient records causing a user interface of the use device to display the selected subset of the additional patient records;
[Claim 8] extracting, from each of the additional patient records and the user query, a semantic meaning of one or more features within each of the additional patient records and the user query;
constructing a semantic meaning vector for each of the additional patient records and the user query, the semantic meaning vector comprising a set of semantic meaning features and wherein extracted values are added to corresponding ones of the set of semantic meaning features in the semantic meaning vector constructed for said each of the additional patient records and the user query;
determining, by one or more ML model(s), a relevance score of a semantic meaning vector constructed for the user query to each semantic meaning vector corresponding to each of the additional patient records; and
selecting the subset of additional patient records as the additional patient records having a determined relevance score that satisfies a relevancy threshold;
[Claim 9 & 19] obtaining, by the care management platform, a new patient record, the new patient record being associated with the patient ID;
performing, by the care management platform, text extraction to extract one or more portions of text from the new patient record;
mapping, by the care management platform, zero or more unified medical language system (UMLS) concept unique identifiers (CUIs) to each of the one or more portions of text extracted from the new patient record, wherein each mapping is based on a matching of terms in a CUI to one or more terms in a portion of extracted text; and
filtering, by the care management platform, one or more irrelevant portions of text; and
adding, by the care management platform, the new patient record and one or more retained portions of text as new entries to the patient data store, wherein each new entry comprises metadata for the patient ID and metadata for the zero or more UMLS CUIs mapped to said each new entry;
[Claim 10] wherein the new patient record is unstructured data and comprises an image of a patient record, and performing the text extraction comprises:
performing one or more image processing operations to extract text from the image of the patient record;
[Claim 11] wherein the new patient record is structure data and comprises an electronic medical record, and performing the text extraction comprise:
extracting text from one or more text fields of the electronic medical record;
[Claim 12] wherein filtering the one or more irrelevant portions of text, comprises:
applying a machine learning (ML) model trained to determine a relevancy of textual content and/or one or more UMLS CUIs associated with the textual content to a domain of care to be provided to the patient;
[Claim 13] wherein the request is received as an application programming interface (API) based message generated by the user device, and the request is received at an API endpoint of the care management platform;
[Claim 14] wherein the request and the response are transmitted using a secure protocol for the exchange of information over a communications network;
these italicized portions are methods of organizing human activity since they merely describe types of data and determinations that can be performed by humans. The recitation of retraining the ML model, construction of a semantic meaning vector, and determination of a relevance score at a high level of generality has been treated as part of the abstract idea, specifically as mathematical calculations which falls within the abstract idea of mathematical concepts (see 2024 USPTO AI Guidance).
Step 2A Prong 2
Dependent claims 2, 5-10, 12-13, and 16-19 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (the additional limitations in claims 2 & 16 (by the ML model); claims 5 & 17 (by the care management platform from the user device; by the care management platform; and, using, by the care management platform, the tuned ML model); claim 6 (by the care management platform from a graphical user interface rendered on the user device in response to a user selecting the patient record from within the graphical user interface, and wherein an application rendering the graphical user interface transmits the user feedback to the care management platform); claims 7 &18 (at the care management platform from the user device; by the care management platform; and, by the care management platform to the user device); claim 8 (by one or more ML model(s)); claims 9 & 19 (by the care management platform); claim 10 (performing one or more image processing operations to extract text from the image of the patient record); and, claim 12 (applying a machine learning (ML) model trained to determine a relevancy of textual content and/or one or more UMLS CUIs associated with the textual content to a domain of care to be provided to the patient) amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea such as claim 13 (wherein the request is received as an application programming interface (API) based message generated by the user device, and the request is received at an API endpoint of the care management platform) amounts to mere data gathering since it does not add meaningful limitations to the receiving actions performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Dependent claims 2, 5-10, 12, and 16-19 recites additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, see [0081] which provides examples of off-the-shelf processors and memory. Dependent claim 13 amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). There is no indication that these additional elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, in consideration of all the facts, the present invention is not a patent-eligible invention under USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 13-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodlief et al. (US20220076794A1) in view of Mathur at al. (WO2022221175A1) and further in view of Straub et al. (WO2022034420A1).
Regarding claim 1, Woodlief discloses receiving, by the care management platform from the user device, a request for patient records relevant to a patient ([0012] “Wherein the first local server generates an electronic record request using at least one of the patient demographic information and record request information, and wherein the first local server transmits the electronic record request to the second local server via the server.”)
the request comprising a patient identifier (ID), a care provider identifier (ID), and a care provider context ([0059] “the request includes a unique ID (UID) that is associated or correlated with a patient ID for the patient […] primary care physician information, universal identifier, accession number, medical record number,” [0060] “electronic record request can include procedure identifiers”)
executing, by a search engine of the care management platform, the
query causing the search engine to access and search a patient data store for patient records that comprise the patient ID from the query ([0056] “a web-based or mobile-based portal to search for prior medical records” [0077] “Upon entering the patient ID and selecting the search icon 304, the local server 114 can retrieve the patient demographic information using a patient-level demographic query against a DICOM archive, patient record archive, a medical records database, and the like associated with the requesting medical provider 100.”)
receiving, by a first filtering subsystem of the care management platform from the search engine, patient records returned in response to the querying ([0081] “In the event that a query using the patient ID yields multiple results with differing demographic information, the interface 300 can display the multiple patient records and prompt the requesting medical provider 100 to select the patient record which they would like to utilize for the electronic record request.”)
performing, by the first filtering subsystem of the care management platform, a first filtering of the patient records returned in response to the querying, wherein the first filtering removes one or more returned patient records that are not related to the care provider context using a deterministic rule-based filter executed by the first filtering subsystem to generate a first reduced set of patient records ([0053] “a hospital information system (HIS)” [0097] “The interface 1000 displays a list 1002 of electronic record requests which require attention. The list 1002 can be filtered by various criteria, including, but not limited to, priority code, appointment date, electronic record request receipt date, physician, facility name, patient name, requesting medical provider, and the like.”)
and transmitting, by the care management platform to the user device, a response comprising at least a subset of the final reduced set of patient records ([0105] “FIG. 14 is an exemplary interface 1400 to confirm a transmission of selected prior medical records 1402 to a requesting medical provider, according to an embodiment of the invention. After confirming that the selected prior medical records 1402 are to be transmitted, the selected prior medical records are sent to the requesting medical provider 100.”)
Woodlief does not explicitly disclose however Mathur teaches performing, by a second filtering subsystem of the care management platform, a second filtering of the patient records in the first reduced set of patient records, the second filtering using the first reduced set of patient records as input to a machine learning (ML) model that scores relevance of each of the first reduced set of patient records to the care provider context ([105] “Such characteristic or feature of interest may be derived from patient or subjects records, or the processing of such patient or subjects records using machine learning or artificial intelligence. In some cases, the list of patients or subjects may comprise a filtered or ranked subset of patients or subjects as described elsewhere herein.” [28] “In some embodiments, (b) comprises processing a set of features of the first set of subject records using the trained machine learning algorithm to determine a score for each of at least a subset of the first set of subject records” [31] “In some embodiments, the set of features is selected from the group consisting of […] clinical characteristics” [15] “In some embodiments, the clinical procedure is a diagnostic test for a clinical disease, disorder, or condition. In some embodiments, the clinical disease, disorder, or condition is cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is breast cancer.”)
Note: cancer suggests the care provider context.
and removing one or more patient records from the first reduced set of patient records based on the scores generated by the ML model to generate a final reduced set of patient records ([105] “In some cases, the targeted campaign or search may produce a list of patients or subjects having a particular characteristic or feature of interest. Such characteristic or feature of interest may be derived from patient or subjects records, or the processing of such patient or subjects records using machine learning or artificial intelligence. In some cases, the list of patients or subjects may comprise a filtered or ranked subset of patients or subjects as described elsewhere herein”)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Woodlief performing a second filtering as taught by Mathur since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Woodlief in view of Mathur does not explicitly disclose however Straub teaches and in response to the request for patient records: generating, by the care management platform, a query that comprises the patient ID from the received request as a search criteria of the query ([0017] Aspects of the present disclosure relate to using a patient data molecule […] to retrieve a plurality of medical records from an input noun phrase.” [0030] “The system may be used to generate a query.” [0031] “the patient data molecule can
correspond to a plurality of medical records for an individual patient” [0032] “extraction may be performed, for example, by comparing the terms appearing in the document against a predetermined collection of terms that are eligible for searching” [0033] “associating the extracted term with a category that is semantically related with the extracted term”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Woodlief and Mathur generating a query that comprises the patient ID from the received request as a search criteria of the query as taught by Straub since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Woodlief does not explicitly disclose however Mathur teaches scoring, by the ML model, a relevancy of each of the patient records in the first reduced set of patient records based at least in part on the care provider context and zero or more unified medical language system (UMLS) concept unique identifiers (CUIs) mapped to one or more features of said each of the patient records ([28] “In some embodiments, (b) comprises processing a set of features of the first set of subject records using the trained machine learning algorithm to determine a score for each of at least a subset of the first set of subject records” [31] “In some embodiments, the set of features is selected from the group consisting of demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, clinical history, and history of past outreach.” [15] “In some embodiments, the clinical procedure is a diagnostic test for a clinical disease, disorder, or condition. In some embodiments, the clinical disease, disorder, or condition is cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is breast cancer.”)
Note: cancer suggests the care provider context
and generating the final reduced set of patient records based on the scores associated with said each of the patient records generated by the ML model ([78] “In such cases, the subjects in the second set of subjects may comprise a listing, an arrangement, or a grouping of the first set of subjects according to a rank or a score. In some cases, the subjects in the second set of subjects may comprise a subset of the subjects in the first set of subjects.” [105] “In some cases, the targeted campaign or search may produce a list of patients or subjects having a particular characteristic or feature of interest. Such characteristic or feature of interest may be derived from patient or subjects records, or the processing of such patient or subjects records using machine learning or artificial intelligence. In some cases, the list of patients or subjects may comprise a filtered or ranked subset of patients or subjects as described elsewhere herein.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Woodlief scoring, by the ML model, a relevancy of each of the patient records in the first reduced set of patient records; and, generating the final reduced set of patient records as taught by Mathur since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Woodlief does not explicitly disclose however Mathur teaches wherein the final reduced set of patient records comprises a subset of the first reduced set of patient records ([104] “In any of the embodiments described herein, […] the second set of subjects or subject records may be ranked or filtered based on one or more characteristics or features of the first […] set of subjects/ subject records.”)
and each member selected for the subset is associated with a relevancy score satisfying a relevancy threshold ([37] “generating the second set of subject records based at least in part on the scores for the at least the subset of the first set of subject records” [10] “In some embodiments, a given subject record is selected for inclusion in the second set of subject records when the given subject record (i) has a score that is greater than a first pre determined threshold.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Woodlief a subset of the first reduced set of patient records, and each member selected for the subset is associated with a relevancy score satisfying a relevancy threshold as taught by Mathur since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Woodlief does not explicitly disclose however Mathur teaches discloses wherein the final reduced set of patient records comprises a subset of the first reduced set of patient records selected for having highest scores in the scoring of said each of the patient records ([30] “In some embodiments, a given subject record is selected for inclusion in the second set of subject records when the given subject record (i) has a score that is greater than a first pre determined threshold.” [34] “wherein the second set of subjects is a ranked subset of the first set of subjects, and wherein the second set of subject records is a subset of the first set of subject records”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Woodlief the final reduced set of patient records comprises a subset of the first reduced set of patient records selected for having highest scores in the scoring of said each of the patient records as taught by Mathur since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Woodlief discloses receiving, at the care management platform from the user device, a user query for additional patient records, the query comprising: a keyword or natural language query, a patient ID, a care provider ID, and a care provider context ([0059] “the request includes a unique ID (UID) that is associated or correlated with a patient ID for the patient […] primary care physician information, universal identifier, accession number, medical record number,” [0060] “electronic record request can include procedure identifiers”)
executing, by the care management platform, the query against the patient data store for the additional patient records based on the patient ID, provider ID, and provider context ([0072] “For a selected electronic record request, the system can display matching patient records, and allows the external medical provider 102 to select all or specific patient records to transmit to the requesting medical provider 100, in response to the electronic record request.”)
selecting, by the care management platform, a subset of the additional patient records ([0098] “In addition, the external medical provider 102 can enter text in text box 1004 to query the list 1002 based on keywords, names, identification numbers, codes, etc. The list 1002 can automatically update based on the text entered, or being entered as the user is typing, in the text box 1004.”)
transmitting, by the care management platform to the user device, the selected subset of the additional patient records causing a user interface of the use device to display the selected subset of the additional patient records ([0105] “FIG. 14 is an exemplary interface 1400 to confirm a transmission of selected prior medical records 1402 to a requesting medical provider, according to an embodiment of the invention. After confirming that the selected prior medical records 1402 are to be transmitted, the selected prior medical records are sent to the requesting medical provider 100.” [0081] “the interface 300 can display the multiple patient records and prompt the requesting medical provider 100 to select the patient record which they would like to utilize”)
Regarding claim 13, Woodlief discloses wherein the request is received as an application programming interface (API) based message generated by the user device, and the request is received at an API endpoint of the care management platform ([0033] “As used herein, the term “data exchange interface” can refer to, for example, an interface, standard, specification and/or protocol that allows for disparate systems to share data […] [0045] “In an embodiment, the requesting medical provider 100 can enter a patient appointment into a patient scheduling system 118 that is integrated with the EHR system via a portal (i.e., such as in a FHIR interface compatible EHR or in an EHR with API access).”)
Regarding claim 14, Woodlief discloses wherein the request and the response are transmitted using a secure protocol for the exchange of information over a communications network ([0051] “In an embodiment, while the medical network 104 facilitates communication of an electronic record request between the medical providers 100, 102, the actual transmission of medical records can occur via encrypted, secure peer-to-peer communication channels 124”)
Regarding claim 15, Woodlief discloses receiving, by the care management platform from the user device, a request for patient records relevant to a patient ([0012] “Wherein the first local server generates an electronic record request using at least one of the patient demographic information and record request information, and wherein the first local server transmits the electronic record request to the second local server via the server.”)
the request comprising a patient identifier (ID), a care provider identifier (ID), and a care provider context ([0059] “the request includes a unique ID (UID) that is associated or correlated with a patient ID for the patient […] primary care physician information, universal identifier, accession number, medical record number,” [0060] “electronic record request can include procedure identifiers”)
executing, by a search engine of the care management platform, the
query causing the search engine to access and search a patient data store for patient records that comprise the patient ID from the query ([0056] “a web-based or mobile-based portal to search for prior medical records” [0077] “Upon entering the patient ID and selecting the search icon 304, the local server 114 can retrieve the patient demographic information using a patient-level demographic query against a DICOM archive, patient record archive, a medical records database, and the like associated with the requesting medical provider 100.”)
receiving, by a first filtering subsystem of the care management platform from the search engine, patient records returned in response to the querying ([0081] “In the event that a query using the patient ID yields multiple results with differing demographic information, the interface 300 can display the multiple patient records and prompt the requesting medical provider 100 to select the patient record which they would like to utilize for the electronic record request.”)
performing, by the first filtering subsystem of the care management platform, a first filtering of the patient records returned in response to the querying, wherein the first filtering removes one or more returned patient records that are not related to the care provider context using a deterministic rule-based filter executed by the first filtering subsystem to generate a first reduced set of patient records ([0053] “a hospital information system (HIS)” [0097] “The interface 1000 displays a list 1002 of electronic record requests which require attention. The list 1002 can be filtered by various criteria, including, but not limited to, priority code, appointment date, electronic record request receipt date, physician, facility name, patient name, requesting medical provider, and the like.”)
and transmitting, by the care management platform to the user device, a response comprising at least a subset of the final reduced set of patient records ([0105] “FIG. 14 is an exemplary interface 1400 to confirm a transmission of selected prior medical records 1402 to a requesting medical provider, according to an embodiment of the invention. After confirming that the selected prior medical records 1402 are to be transmitted, the selected prior medical records are sent to the requesting medical provider 100.”)
Woodlief does not explicitly disclose however Mathur teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for a care management platform and a user device interacting during the providing of real-time provider intelligence information ([24] “In another aspect, the present disclosure provides a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising machine-executable code that, upon execution by one or more computer processors”)
performing, by a second filtering subsystem of the care management platform, a second filtering of the patient records in the first reduced set of patient records, the second filtering using the first reduced set of patient records as input to a machine learning (ML) model that scores relevance of each of the first reduced set of patient records to the care provider context ([105] “Such characteristic or feature of interest may be derived from patient or subjects records, or the processing of such patient or subjects records using machine learning or artificial intelligence. In some cases, the list of patients or subjects may comprise a filtered or ranked subset of patients or subjects as described elsewhere herein.” [28] “In some embodiments, (b) comprises processing a set of features of the first set of subject records using the trained machine learning algorithm to determine a score for each of at least a subset of the first set of subject records” [31] “In some embodiments, the set of features is selected from the group consisting of […] clinical characteristics” [15] “In some embodiments, the clinical procedure is a diagnostic test for a clinical disease, disorder, or condition. In some embodiments, the clinical disease, disorder, or condition is cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is breast cancer.”)
Note: cancer suggests the care provider context.
and removing one or more patient records from the first reduced set of patient records based on the scores generated by the ML model to generate a final reduced set of patient records ([105] “In some cases, the targeted campaign or search may produce a list of patients or subjects having a particular characteristic or feature of interest. Such characteristic or feature of interest may be derived from patient or subjects records, or the processing of such patient or subjects records using machine learning or artificial intelligence. In some cases, the list of patients or subjects may comprise a filtered or ranked subset of patients or subjects as described elsewhere herein”)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Woodlief a non-transitory computer readable medium and performing a second filtering as taught by Mathur since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Woodlief in view of Mathur does not explicitly disclose however Straub teaches and in response to the request for patient records: generating, by the care management platform, a query that comprises the patient ID from the received request as a search criteria of the query ([0017] Aspects of the present disclosure relate to using a patient data molecule […] to retrieve a plurality of medical records from an input noun phrase.” [0030] “The system may be used to generate a query.” [0031] “the patient data molecule can
correspond to a plurality of medical records for an individual patient” [0032] “extraction may be performed, for example, by comparing the terms appearing in the document against a predetermined collection of terms that are eligible for searching” [0033] “associating the extracted term with a category that is semantically related with the extracted term”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Woodlief and Mathur generating a query that comprises the patient ID from the received request as a search criteria of the query as taught by Straub since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations are rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, Woodlief discloses receiving, at the care management platform from the user device, a user query for additional patient records, the query comprising: a keyword or natural language query, a patient ID, a care provider ID, and a care provider context ([0059] “the request includes a unique ID (UID) that is associated or correlated with a patient ID for the patient […] primary care physician information, universal identifier, accession number, medical record number,” [0060] “electronic record request can include procedure identifiers”)
executing, by the care management platform, the query against the patient data store for the additional patient records based on the patient ID, provider ID, and provider context ([0072] “For a selected electronic record request, the system can display matching patient records, and allows the external medical provider 102 to select all or specific patient records to transmit to the requesting medical provider 100, in response to the electronic record request.”)
selecting, by the care management platform, a subset of the additional patient records ([0098] “In addition, the external medical provider 102 can enter text in text box 1004 to query the list 1002 based on keywords, names, identification numbers, codes, etc. The list 1002 can automatically update based on the text entered, or being entered as the user is typing, in the text box 1004.”)
transmitting, by the care management platform to the user device, the selected subset of the additional patient records causing a user interface of the use device to display the selected subset of the additional patient records ([0105] “FIG. 14 is an exemplary interface 1400 to confirm a transmission of selected prior medical records 1402 to a requesting medical provider, according to an embodiment of the invention. After confirming that the selected prior medical records 1402 are to be transmitted, the selected prior medical records are sent to the requesting medical provider 100.” [0081] “the interface 300 can display the multiple patient records and prompt the requesting medical provider 100 to select the patient record which they would like to utilize”)
Regarding claim 20, Woodlief discloses receive, from a user device, a request for patient records relevant to a patient ([0012] “Wherein the first local server generates an electronic record request using at least one of the patient demographic information and record request information, and wherein the first local server transmits the electronic record request to the second local server via the server.”)
the request comprising