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 .
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.
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1 – 13 are pending.
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 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim(s), understood as a whole, recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a machine (claims 1 – 13) which recite abstract idea steps of
store patient medical data into medical records
streamline interactions between medical professionals and medical records.
The Examiner understands the claimed invention as a whole in light of the Specification. Paragraph 2 (Background) describes the problem solved in the last sentence, “What is needed is a dynamic medical records system that minimizes data entry times for doctors working in the field.” This idea that the invention is directed towards improving patient care is emphasized in paragraphs 3 – 5. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are included here:
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[003] The device herein disclosed and described provides a solution to the shortcomings in the prior art through the disclosure of a NEMRS. A main object of the invention is to streamline interactions between a medical professional and the medical records entry and query process. This enhancement is achieved through a system designed around small-scale changes of individual data elements without requiring redocumentation of the remainder of the unchanged data during each visit.
[004] Another object of the invention is to reduce information overload, information scatter, and error propagation. The NEMRS dissolves the sharp boundary between notes written by different teams in favor of a default collaborative workspace. For example, when logged into the system all stakeholders can view patient information and records by multiple health care specialists to minimize redundant, time-consuming entries.
Note that the invention is not directed toward a technical or technological solution to overcome a technical problem. Rather, the invention applies technology to the abstract idea.
These steps of claims 1 – 13, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the server language, streamlining in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. Similarly, the limitation of customize, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the computer-readable medium language, logging in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These steps of claims 1 – 13, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. Please see comments above regarding Specifications paragraphs 2 – 5. Further, the independent claim pre-amble emphasizes this human activity idea with, “A system for streamlining interactions between medical professionals and medical records entry and query processes.” As mentioned above, the improvements are achieved by applying the abstract idea to technology to achieve all the benefits of applying that abstract idea to technology. Please see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2 – 13, reciting particular aspects of how aggregating information may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements 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 when executed… 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 notifications, see other editing amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
The result of the invention is data. That data has a potential application but not a practical application. The data may be displayed on a screen, stored in a file, or output to a piece of paper with same result.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 13, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). 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 conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/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, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as claims 1 – 13; entering, outputting, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
Additional elements
Server – paragraphs 17 and 29
Storage media – paragraph 17
Software – paragraphs 28 and 29
Regarding the cursor of dependent claim 9, this feature is only described in Specification paragraph 25 (emphasis added).
The public nature of the chat enables any system user, including physician colleagues or learners, nurses, and other staff, to understand the clinical decisions that have been made for their patients and to learn from these conversations, as opposed to these happening in closed-door sessions. Within the workspaces, we include a real-time cursor tracking feature: a user in a patient chart can see which other users are editing that workspace and where their cursor is located to prevent multiple users from editing the same information at the same time and facilitate real-time collaboration (e.g., by serving as a jumping-off point for a chat conversation between a primary clinician and a consultant).
Those two emphasized locations are the only description of this feature. Since the Specification does not disclose how this operates, it is understood that this is an existing element applied to the instant invention. The Examiner is including Microsoft Remote Desktop Control as an example of how this could work.
It should be emphasized the NEMRS design is not disclosed. NEMRS is disclosed at a high level using functional terms. The Examiner believes that NEMRS is an existing Electronic Medical Record with the addition of a note taking feature.
Dependent claims recite 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. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 13, additional limitations which 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)). 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 conventional computer implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2015/ 0261917.
As per claim 1,
Smith teaches a system for streamlining interactions between medical professionals and medical records entry and query processes comprising the following parts:
a) a server with one or more processors and one or more mobile or computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to one or more of the processors and comprising instructions operable when executed by one or more of the processors (paragraph 50 shared pool of configurable computer resources); and
b) one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media comprising software that is operable when executed by the server to and based on data stored by the processor and software as a service for streamlining interactions between medical professionals and medical records (Abstract, collaborative medical records system, paragraphs 45, 46 FCMR or Federated Collaborative Medical Record).
As per claim 2, Smith teaches the system of claim 1 as described above.
Smith further teaches the system wherein the software having digital cards (figure 3 paragraphs 56, 57 Tabs – The Specification does not define what a “digital card” is or must contain) containing
patient medical history along with information relating to an associated medical topic for streamlining interactions between medical professionals and medical records (figure 3 and paragraph 57 “on-the-fly” filter functionality figure 13, paragraphs 50, 60, 67 threaded chat).
As per claim 4, Smith teaches the system of claim 2 as described above.
Smith further teaches the system wherein the digital cards being accessed by multiple clinicians in different fields at the same time reducing the incentive for note taking (figure 2 paragraph 53, 56 synchronous where the limitation following “reducing…” is a statement of intent.).
As per claim 6, Smith teaches the system of claim 2 as described above.
Smith further teaches the system wherein the digital cards include embedded text from external resources such as guideline organizations and research studies, enabling clinical refreshers and ongoing medical education for trainees (paragraph 65 claim 54– the limitation following “such as” are understood to be non-limiting examples. The limitation following “enabling” is considered a statement of intent).
As per claim 7, Smith teaches the system of claim 2 as described above.
Smith further teaches the system wherein all digital card activity being tracked in a separate logging table, enabling fine-grained assignment of responsibility for individual edits to particular users (paragraphs 11, 67).
As per claim 10, Smith teaches the system of claim 1 as described above.
Smith further teaches the system wherein the software having a patient interface allowing the patient to view test results in real time (paragraph 72).
As per claim 11, Smith teaches the system of claim 1 as described above.
Smith further teaches the system a wherein the software allowing clinicians to view laboratory test results in multiple formats for preventing information scatter, underload, and lost time (paragraphs 49 and 50 - It should be emphasized that the Specification and claim both describe a result but not a process of achieving that result).
This is understood from paragraph 22
[022] This system is designed to prevent the propagation of incorrect values because when a clinician forgets to update the text-a scenario that has the potential for significant medical error. NEMRS allows each structured data element to be displayed in multiple formats-a "last value" option, an "all values" option, a "specific value" option (which does not change with time), and a graph option, which enables a real-time updating graph of the latest values of a particular structured data element, such as a laboratory value. These data elements are situated within the free text card fields and removes the requirement to navigate with multiple clicks to separate graph viewing interfaces and showing topic-relevant information in the same place-preventing information scatter, underload, and lost time. To facilitate flexible, customizable workflows, NEMRS takes the widest possible view of what counts as structured data by enabling individual users to define and create their own structured data elements, as well as enter any structured data value themselves (e.g., laboratory values obtained from outside organizations). This includes traditional structured data elements, such as laboratory results, but is also designed to work with other numeric values (ejection fraction, pack-years of tobacco use, and risk scores) in addition to string values and categorical values (code status and the patient's current outpatient pulmonologist). This feature empowers individual clinicians to quickly improve their templating systems.
As per claim 12, Smith teaches the system of claim 1 as described above.
Smith further teaches the system wherein the software
having team management and list running functions interface that aggregates the latest state of all workspaces for all patients on a particular team (Figure 3 -It should be emphasized that this claim describes a list but not the list requirements.),
enabling highly granular actions to be taken for individual patients from a single screen without any requirement to navigate between charts (The Examiner notes that this is a statement of intent… Enabling something to occur as in figure 3 which has hyperlinks).
This is understood from paragraph 27
[027] Another major source of information scatter rests at the level of the team or patient group. An extremely common medical records system uses case involves clinicians managing groups of patients (e.g., an inpatient team or an outpatient panel) and either (1) looking for updates in the state of any patient in the group or (2) running the list-identifying the status and action items of a group of patients in rapid sequence. Team management and list-running are other core features in NEMRS. The team view interface aggregates the latest state of all workspaces for all patients on a particular team, enabling highly granular actions to be taken for individual patients from a single screen without any requirement to navigate between charts. The team view displays the list of digital cards for each workspace, enabling quick addition or editing of specific card fields with new single pieces of information. This enables immediate placement of information in topic-appropriate locations-a feature designed to facilitate keeping the chart organized, preventing the need to redocument the same information in different places or scatter information across multiple locations. In addition, the to-do items for each workspace are aggregated and viewable on one page, enabling efficient list running even for large groups of patients.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2015/ 0261917 in view of Reiner, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2008/0175460.
As per claim 3, Smith teaches the system of claim 2 as described above.
Smith does not explicitly teach however, Reiner further teaches the system wherein the digital cards enabling institutions, teams, or individual clinicians to develop digital cards customized to their own individual workflows (paragraph 106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add these features into Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have added these features into Smith with the motivation to provide instantaneous access to a variety of software programs, which are customized using user-specific profiles from a database which includes predetermined workflow preferences (Reiner, Abstract).
As per claim 5, Smith teaches the system of claim 2 as described above.
Smith does not explicitly teach however, Reiner further teaches the system wherein the digital cards being part of a template engine that creates a granular templating system consisting of a set of prespecified fields with optional prespecified default text in each field (figure 2, #305, #306 paragraph 107– The Specification does not disclose what a “template engine” must be).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add these features into Smith for the reasons as described above.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2015/ 0261917 in view of Kleinbart et al, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2012/ 0278388.
As per claim 8, Smith teaches the system of claim 7 as described above.
Smith does not explicitly teach however, Kleinbart further teaches the system wherein the software having a workspace that
includes to-do lists with reminders accompanied by push notifications (paragraph 134) and
has permissions that enables clinicians to view relevant information documented by someone else from another workspace (paragraph 96 screen sharing to be taken over).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add these features into Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have added these features into Smith with the motivation to prioritize at least some tasks and actions associated with a user. (Kleinbart, Abstract).
As per claim 13, Smith teaches the system of claim 12 as described above.
Smith does not explicitly teach however, Kleinbart further teaches the system wherein the interface having to-do items for each workspace aggregated and viewable for enabling efficient list running for large groups of patients (figures 3 and 4, paragraph 86 - What is interesting is that the aggregation of the to-do items is not defined. Are the items for a single patient being aggregated? Are items for multiple patients being aggregated? Are individual to-lists aggregated across multiple tabs? Also, since the “items” are being aggregated, is it the list at all?).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2015/ 0261917 in view of Tadessee al, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2023/ 0297208.
As per claim 9, Smith teaches the system of claim 7 as described above.
Smith does not explicitly teach however, Tadesse further teaches the system wherein the workspace having
a real-time cursor tracking feature
so a user can see others editing that workspace (paragraph 68) and
where their cursor is located to prevent multiple users from editing the same information at the same time for facilitating real-time collaboration (paragraph 70 feedback hierarchy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add these features into Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have added these features into Smith with the motivation to receive position data from each of a plurality of user computing devices, the position data indicating a cursor position on a collaborative user interface for each collaborator during a collaborative session. (Tadessee, Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koblick et al Pub. No.: US 2020/0111578 aid medical practitioners with clinical decisions, in which recommendations and other information are derived utilizing a software reinforcement learning framework relating patient information to medical experiential case-files.
Ginsburg et al Pub. No.: US 2024/0257931 displaying data on a display screen from multiple data sources and allowing navigation amongst the data without leaving the display of the visual display system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Neal R Sereboff whose telephone number is (571)270-1373. The examiner can normally be reached M - T, M - F 8AM - 6PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571)272-6773. 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.
/NEAL SEREBOFF/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626