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 Amendments
Claims 1-49 are currently pending in this case and have been examined and
addressed below. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the
Amendment to the Claims and Remarks filed on 02/16/2024
Claims 1-32 are original claims.
Claims 33-49 are new claims.
Priority
This application claims benefit to the U.S. Provisional Application Serial No.
63233941, filed on 08/17/2021, which are hereby incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.
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 1-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims are drawn to two methods and an article of manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites a method for identifying a user health-related event associated with a user, wherein the user health- related event is a diabetes related event; determining a context associated with the user health-related event, wherein the context comprises at least one of a time, a location, or a medical condition associated with the user health-related event; determining a first notification visibility level for the user health-related event, wherein the first notification visibility level is a measure of the visibility to the user of a notification associated with the user health-related event; receiving data associated with the user health-related event; determining an adherence level for the user health-related event based on the data associated with the user health-related event; comparing the adherence level for the user health-related event to a plurality of predefined adherence thresholds; in response to comparing the adherence level to the plurality of predefined adherence thresholds, determining a second notification visibility level for the user health-related event; detecting a triggering event associated with the user health-related event.
Independent claim 18 recites a method for logging a plurality of entries associated with a first user health-related event associated with a user, wherein the first user health-related event comprises one of a diabetes-related event or a non-diabetes related event; determining a first context associated with the first user health-related event, wherein the first context comprises at least one of a time or a location associated with the first user health- related event; determining that the plurality of entries indicate that the user is above an adherence threshold for the first user health-related event; logging a second user health-related event, wherein the second user health-related event comprises a diabetes-related event; determining a second context associated with the second user health-related event, wherein the second context comprises at least one of a time or a location associated with the second user health-related event; determining that the first context associated with the first user health-related event is within a predefined threshold of the second context associated with the second user health- related event; in response to determining that the context associated with the first user health-related event is within the predefined threshold, grouping the first user health-related event with the second user health-related event in a notification group; detecting a triggering event when user is estimated to perform the first user-health related event.
Independent claim 33 recites at least one computer readable medium for identifying a user health-related event associated with a user, wherein the user health-related event is a diabetes related event; determine a context associated with the user health-related event, wherein the context comprises at least one of a time, a location, or a medical condition associated with the user health-related event; determine a first notification visibility level for the user health-related event, wherein the first notification visibility level is a measure of the visibility to the user of a notification associated with the user health-related event; receive data associated with the user health-related event; determine an adherence level for the user health-related event based on the data associated with the user health-related event; compare the adherence level for the user health-related event to a plurality of predefined adherence thresholds; in response to the comparison of the adherence level to the plurality of predefined adherence thresholds, determine a second notification visibility level for the user health-related event; detect a triggering event associated with the user health-related event.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
The claims recite the additional elements of a mobile device, memory of a mobile device, at least one computer-readable storage medium, and at least one processor.
These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception because this is an example of applying the abstract idea by use of general-purpose computer which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 33 recite communicating, using the second notification visibility level, the notification associated with the user health-related event to a mobile device associated with the user based on detection of the triggering event. Claim 18 recites communicating, via an audible alert or a visible alert on the mobile device, an alert to the user to perform at least the second user health-related event based on detection of the triggering event. These limitation are recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the claims recite the additional elements of a mobile device, memory of a mobile device, at least one computer-readable storage medium, at least one processor, and communicating, using the second notification visibility level, the notification associated with the user health-related event to a mobile device associated with the user based on detection of the triggering event.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the reasons stated, these claims are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Analysis of Dependent Claims
Dependent claim 2, 21, and 34 recite wherein the first notification visibility level is determined based on the context.
Dependent claim 3 and 35 recite wherein the second notification visibility level is determined to be a higher visibility level than the first notification visibility level when the adherence level is below a first predefined adherence threshold associated with the first notification visibility level.
Dependent claim 4 and 36 recite wherein the second notification visibility level is determined to be a lower visibility level than the first notification visibility level when the adherence level is greater than a second predefined adherence threshold associated with the first notification visibility level.
Dependent claim 5, 22, and 37 recite wherein the first and second notification visibility levels comprise an intervention visibility level, a request input visibility level, a dashboard visibility level, or a hidden visibility level.
Dependent claim 7, 24, and 39 recite wherein the request input visibility level comprises requesting the user to log completion of the user health-related event.
Dependent claims 8, 25, and 40 recite wherein the dashboard visibility level comprises displaying a list of the user health-related event and at least one other user health-related event to be completed in a given time period.
Dependent claims 9, 26, and 41 recite wherein the list is organized based on context.
Dependent claims 10, 27, and 42 recite wherein the hidden visibility level comprises hiding the notification from the user.
Dependent claims 11, 28, and 43 recite wherein the request input visibility level is selected as the first notification visibility level when the user health-related event is new to the user.
Dependent claims 12 and 44 recite determining that the context associated with the user health-related event matches the context of at least one other user health-related event, wherein the at least one other user health- related event is a non-diabetes related event; and grouping the user health-related event with the at least one other user health-related event in a notification group, wherein the notification group is used to send a notification that indicates the user health-related event and the at least one other user health-related event.
Dependent claim 13 and 45 recite wherein the adherence level comprises a range of adherence for the user health-related event.
Dependent claims 14, 29, and 46 recite wherein the user health-related event is associated with a plurality of adherence levels.
Dependent claims 15, 30, and 47 wherein each of the plurality of adherence levels comprises an upper adherence threshold and a lower adherence threshold.
Dependent claim 16, 31, and 48 wherein the plurality of adherence levels are adjustable based on one or more of a characteristic of the user, an age of the user health-related event, a characteristic of the user health-related event, a number of times adherence of the user health-related event has been logged within a predefined time period, or the frequency of the user health-related event.
Dependent claim 19 recites adjusting a visibility of the alert in response to a number of times the second user health-related event is logged within a predefined period of time and the adherence threshold.
Dependent claim 20 recites the alert is communicated based on the triggering event being detected for the first user-health related event, and wherein the first user- health related event being above the adherence threshold causes the visible alert or audible alert to fail to include information related specifically to the first user-health related event.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims 2-5, 7-16, 19-22, 24-31, 24-37, and 39-48 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1, 18, or 33 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim.
Dependent claim 6, 23, and 38 recite wherein the intervention visibility level comprises communicating the notification to the mobile device of the user and to at least one other device. The mobile device and at least one other device are additional elements, which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea beyond mere instructions to apply an exception, therefore do not provide a practical application or significantly more.
Dependent claims 17, 32, and 49 recite wherein at least a portion of the data is received by the mobile device of the user upon scanning one or more of a bar code, a quick response (QR) code, a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, or a near field communication (NFC) tag. The mobile device, bar code, a quick response (QR) code, a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, and a near field communication (NFC) tag are additional elements, which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea beyond mere instructions to apply an exception, therefore do not provide a practical application or significantly more.
Claims 33-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 33 is rejected because it does not sufficiently recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319(Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. §101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf. Animals – Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Claims 34-49 depend from Claim 33 and are rejected for the reasons noted in the rejection(s) of Claim 33, above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-16, 33- 43, and 45-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loncar (US 20080238666 A1) in view of Rack-Gomer (US 20150289823 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1
Loncar teaches a method comprising:
identifying a user health-related event associated with a user, wherein the user health- related event is a diabetes related event; ([Para. 0008] identifying a patient, identifying an action to be performed by the patient (i.e. user health-related event. [Para. 0083] a patient may be asked to provide a measurement of blood sugar to assist the health manager in monitoring the patient's diabetes.)
determining a context associated with the user health-related event, wherein the context comprises at least one of a time, a location, or a medical condition associated with the user health-related event; ([Para. 0008] identifying an action to be performed by the patient, identifying a time at which the action is to be performed.)
determining a first notification visibility level for the user health-related event, ([Para. 0008] The alert may be configured to instruct the patient to perform the action.)
receiving data associated with the user health-related event; ([Para. 0008] receiving, from the mobile device, within a predefined period of time, a measurement associated with the action)
determining an adherence level for the user health-related event based on the data associated with the user health-related event; ([Para. 0098] the health manager may determine a compliance percentage for a patient. A compliance percentage may be the ratio of times the patient has confirmed an action to the number of times the patient was supposed to perform the action over a specified time period.)
comparing the adherence level for the user health-related event to a plurality of predefined adherence thresholds; ([Para. 0100] a motivational message may be sent to a patient based on a compliance percentage and/or a range of compliance percentages over a specified period of time. FIG. 14 illustrates an exemplary online form a member may use to create one or more motivational messages. As illustrated by FIG. 14, the member may select a lower threshold 1400 and upper threshold 1405 of a range of compliance, a start date 1410, an end date 1415, a delivery time 1420, a delivery frequency 1425 and/or the like. Table 1 illustrates exemplary compliance percentages and corresponding motivational messages that may be sent to a patient on a medication regimen according to an embodiment.)
in response to comparing the adherence level to the plurality of predefined adherence thresholds, determining a second notification visibility level for the user health-related event; ([Para. 0100] A patient may receive one or more motivational messages based on the patient's compliance with a health regimen. A motivational message may be sent to a patient based on a compliance percentage and/or a range of compliance percentages over a specified period of time (i.e. a second notification visibility level). FIG. 14 illustrates an exemplary online form a member may use to create one or more motivational messages. As illustrated by FIG. 14, the member may select a lower threshold 1400 and upper threshold 1405 of a range of compliance, a start date 1410, an end date 1415, a delivery time 1420, a delivery frequency 1425 and/or the like. The member may also enter one or more motivational messages 1430. Table 1 illustrates exemplary compliance percentages and corresponding motivational messages that may be sent to a patient on a medication regimen.)
detecting a triggering event associated with the user health-related event; ([Para. 0099] The health manager may send one or more messages to one or more of the patient and one or more caregivers if a compliance percentage falls below a specified threshold (i.e. triggering event). For example, the health manager may send a message to the patient and the patient's caregiver if the patient's compliance percentage for a specific medication falls below 50%.)
communicating, using the second notification visibility level, the notification associated with the user health-related event to a mobile device associated with the user based on detection of the triggering event. ([Para. 0101] the motivational message may be sent to the patient via an email, a text message, a multimedia message, a one-way binary SMS message, a binary SMS message, an automated phone call or the like. The patient may receive the motivational message on a mobile device, a personal computer and/or other similar computing device.)
Loncar does not explicitly teach, however Rack-Gomer teaches
wherein the first notification visibility level is a measure of the visibility to the user of a notification associated with the user health-related event; ([Para. 0310] a tachometer-like display has a green section representing low urgency states, a yellow section representing medium urgency states, and a red section representing higher urgency states. The position of the needle indicates the current state, i.e., is tied to the determined GUI.)
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the method of monitoring a patient's compliance with a medication regimen as taught by Loncar and incorporate several or numerous factors in the determination of a glycemic urgency index as taught by Rack-Gomer, with the motivation of continuously monitoring patient blood glucose (Rack-Gomer Para. 0005).
REGARDING CLAIM 2
Loncar/ Rack-Gomer teach the method of claim 1, Loncar further teaches wherein the first notification visibility level is determined based on the context. ([Para. 0008] identifying an action to be performed by the patient, identifying a time at which the action is to be performed.)
REGARDING CLAIM 3
Loncar/ Rack-Gomer teach the method of claim 1, wherein the second notification visibility level is determined to be a higher visibility level than the first notification visibility level when the adherence level is below a first predefined adherence threshold associated with the first notification visibility level. ([Para. 0310] a tachometer-like display has a green section representing low urgency states, a yellow section representing medium urgency states, and a red section representing higher urgency states (i.e. second notification visibility level). The position of the needle indicates the current state, i.e., is tied to the determined GUI. [Para. 0333] If an event falls outside the threshold and is thus meaningful, the same triggers an alert or other resulting output (step 676). For example, a push notification may be delivered, an icon on a trend graph may be portrayed, a batch number may increase, or the like. Other such notifications will also be understood. The alert displayed will generally vary based on the type of event. For example, if the event indicates that the user has traversed from a high glucose value to a low glucose value.)
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the method of monitoring a patient's compliance with a medication regimen as taught by Loncar and incorporate several or numerous factors in the determination of a glycemic urgency index as taught by Rack-Gomer, with the motivation of continuously monitoring patient blood glucose (Rack-Gomer Para. 0005).
REGARDING CLAIM 4
Loncar/ Rack-Gomer teach the method of claim 1, wherein the second notification visibility level is determined to be a lower visibility level than the first notification visibility level when the adherence level is greater than a second predefined adherence threshold associated with the first notification visibility level. ([Para. 0015] an indication of the urgency index is displayed on the mobile device regardless of other running applications or processes, when the determined urgency index reaches or exceeds a threshold indicative of the physiological condition reaching a health risk state, e.g. indicative of risk of an extreme hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic state, unless mediating action is taken by the user. [Para. 0310] A tachometer-like display has a green section representing low urgency states (i.e. second notification visibility level), a yellow section representing medium urgency states, and a red section representing higher urgency states. The position of the needle indicates the current state, i.e., is tied to the determined GUI.)
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the method of monitoring a patient's compliance with a medication regimen as taught by Loncar and incorporate several or numerous factors in the determination of a glycemic urgency index as taught by Rack-Gomer, with the motivation of continuously monitoring patient blood glucose (Rack-Gomer Para. 0005).
REGARDING CLAIM 5
Loncar/ Rack-Gomer teach the method of claim 1, Loncar further teaches wherein the first and second notification visibility levels comprise an intervention visibility level, a request input visibility level, a dashboard visibility level, or a hidden visibility level. ([Para. 0008] Identifying an action to be performed by the patient, identifying a time at which the action is to be performed. The alert may be configured to instruct the patient to perform the action. [Para. 0100] A patient may receive one or more motivational messages (i.e. intervention visibility level) based on the patient's compliance with a health regimen. In an embodiment, a motivational message may be sent to a patient based on a compliance percentage and/or a range of compliance percentages over a specified period of time.)
REGARDING CLAIM 6
Loncar/ Rack-Gomer teach the method of claim 5, Loncar further teaches wherein the intervention visibility level comprises communicating the notification to the mobile device of the user and to at least one other device. ([Para. 0009] notifying one or more of the patient and a caregiver. [Para. 0084] FIG. 9, an alert may be received 915 by a patient's mobile device 905 notifying the patient to take a health related measurement, such as measuring the patient's blood sugar level. For example, a patient may receive an SMS alert that reads, "Test blood sugar." [Para. 0099] The health manager may send one or more messages to one or more of the patient and one or more caregivers if a compliance percentage falls below a specified threshold.)
REGARDING CLAIM 7
Loncar/ Rack-Gomer teach the method of claim 5, Loncar further teaches wherein the request input visibility level comprises requesting the user to log completion of the user health-related event. ([Para. 0084] FIG. 9, an alert may be received 915 by a patient's mobile device 905 notifying the patient to take a health related measurement, such as measuring the patient's blood sugar level. For example, a patient may receive an SMS alert that reads, "Test blood sugar." [Para. 0085] The patient may take 920 the measurement and may enter 925 the measured value via the patient's mobile device 905. For example, the patient may take 920 a blood sugar reading and may enter 925 the blood sugar value on the mobile device 905. For example, the patient may press the `Reply` button on the mobile device 905, enter 925 the measured value on the mobile device 905 and press the `Send` button to transmit the value to the health manager 900.)
REGARDING CLAIM 8
Loncar/ Rack-Gomer teach the method of claim 5, Loncar further teaches wherein the dashboard visibility level comprises displaying a list of the user health-related event and at least one other user health-related event to be completed in a given time period. ([Para. 0078] An alert is received by a mobile device, information associated with the action to be performed by the patient may be displayed to the patient. For example, an alert may be received by a patient's mobile device reminding the patient to take a medication. One or more of the medication's name, the strength of the medication, the units of measure associated with the medication, the form of the medication (i.e., pill, liquid, etc.), an embedded link to an image of the medication and the like may be displayed to the patient on a display screen of the mobile device.)
REGARDING CLAIM 9
Loncar/ Rack-Gomer teach the method of claim 8, Loncar further teaches wherein the list is organized based on context. ([Para. 0078] when an alert is received by a mobile device, information associated with the action to be performed by the patient may be displayed to the patient. For example, an alert may be received by a patient's mobile device reminding the patient to take a medication. One or more of the medication's name, the strength of the medication, the units of measure associated with the medication, the form of the medication (i.e., pill, liquid, etc.), an embedded link to an image of the medication and the like may be displayed to the patient on a display screen of the mobile device.)
REGARDING CLAIM 10
Loncar/ Rack-Gomer teach the method of claim 5, Loncar further teaches wherein the hidden visibility level comprises hiding the notification from the user. ([Para. 0331] The GUI determination and actionable alert may be provided within a game, either to hide the data such that only the user can discern the same, or in such a way that favorable GUI determinations lead to favorable game outcomes.]
REGARDING CLAIM 11
Loncar/ Rack-Gomer teach the method of claim 1, Loncar further teaches wherein the request input visibility level is selected as the first notification visibility level when the user health-related event is new to the user. ([Para. 0064] If a patient is prescribed a new medication, the patient may add information regarding the new medication (i.e. user health-related event), such as the medication's name, dosage, frequency and/or the like to a health regimen so the health manager may generate alerts to remind the patient to take the new medication.)
REGARDING CLAIM 13
Loncar/ Rack-Gomer teach the method of claim 1, Loncar further teaches wherein the adherence level comprises a range of adherence for the user health-related event. ([Para. 0086] The health manager 900 may receive a message having a measured glucose level and may determine whether the measured value is within a predefined range. [Para. 0100] As illustrated by FIG. 14, the member may select a lower threshold 1400 and upper threshold 1405 of a range of compliance. [Para. 0102] Table 2 illustrates exemplary ranges of compliance percentages and corresponding rewards for a patient being treated with Medication A according to an embodiment.)
REGARDING CLAIM 14
Loncar/ Rack-Gomer teach the method of claim 1, Loncar further teaches wherein the user health-related event is associated with a plurality of adherence levels. ([Para. 0086] The health manager 900 may receive a message having a measured glucose level and may determine whether the measured value is within a predefined range. [Para. 0100] As illustrated by FIG. 14, the member may select a lower threshold 1400 and upper threshold 1405 of a range of compliance. [Para. 0102] Table 2 illustrates exemplary ranges of compliance percentages and corresponding rewards for a patient being treated with Medication A according to an embodiment.)
REGARDING CLAIM 15
Loncar/ Rack-Gomer teach the method of claim 14, Loncar further teaches wherein each of the plurality of adherence levels comprises an upper adherence threshold and a lower adherence threshold. ([Para. 0086] The health manager 900 may receive a message having a measured glucose level and may determine whether the measured value is within a predefined range. [Para. 0100] As illustrated by FIG. 14, the member may select a lower threshold 1400 and upper threshold 1405 of a range of compliance. As illustrated by FIG. 14, the member may select a lower threshold 1400 and upper threshold 1405 of a range of compliance. [Para. 0102] Table 2 illustrates exemplary ranges of compliance percentages and corresponding rewards for a patient being treated with Medication A according to an embodiment.)
REGARDING CLAIM 16
Loncar/ Rack-Gomer teach the method of claim 14, Loncar further teaches wherein the plurality of adherence levels are adjustable based on one or more of a characteristic of the user, an age of the user health-related event, a characteristic of the user health-related event, a number of times adherence of the user health-related event has been logged within a predefined time period, or the frequency of the user health-related event. ([Para. 0086] The health manager 900 may receive a message having a measured glucose level and may determine whether the measured value is within a predefined range. [Para. 0100] As illustrated by FIG. 14, the member may select a lower threshold 1400 and upper threshold 1405 of a range of compliance. As illustrated by FIG. 14, the member may select a lower threshold 1400 and upper threshold 1405 of a range of compliance, a start date 1410, an end date 1415, a delivery time 1420, a delivery frequency 1425 and/or the like. [Para. 0102] Table 2 illustrates exemplary ranges of compliance percentages and corresponding rewards for a patient being treated with Medication A according to an embodiment.)
REGARDING CLAIM 33
Loncar teaches at least one computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that are configured to, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: ([Para. 0061] computer-readable storage medium )
identify a user health-related event associated with a user, wherein the user health-related event is a diabetes related event; ([Para. 0008] identifying a patient, identifying an action to be performed by the patient (i.e. user health-related event. [Para. 0083] a patient may be asked to provide a measurement of blood sugar to assist the health manager in monitoring the patient's diabetes.)
determine a context associated with the user health-related event, wherein the context comprises at least one of a time, a location, or a medical condition associated with the user health-related event; ([Para. 0008] identifying an action to be performed by the patient, identifying a time at which the action is to be performed.)
determine a first notification visibility level for the user health-related event; ([Para. 0008] The alert may be configured to instruct the patient to perform the action.)
receive data associated with the user health-related event; ([Para. 0008] receiving, from the mobile device, within a predefined period of time, a measurement associated with the action)
determine an adherence level for the user health-related event based on the data associated with the user health-related event; ([Para. 0098] the health manager may determine a compliance percentage for a patient. A compliance percentage may be the ratio of times the patient has confirmed an action to the number of times the patient was supposed to perform the action over a specified time period.)
compare the adherence level for the user health-related event to a plurality of predefined adherence thresholds; ([Para. 0100] a motivational message may be sent to a patient based on a compliance percentage and/or a range of compliance percentages over a specified period of time. FIG. 14 illustrates an exemplary online form a member may use to create one or more motivational messages. As illustrated by FIG. 14, the member may select a lower threshold 1400 and upper threshold 1405 of a range of compliance, a start date 1410, an end date 1415, a delivery time 1420, a delivery frequency 1425 and/or the like. Table 1 illustrates exemplary compliance percentages and corresponding motivational messages that may be sent to a patient on a medication regimen according to an embodiment.)
in response to the comparison of the adherence level to the plurality of predefined adherence thresholds, determine a second notification visibility level for the user health-related event; ([Para. 0100] A patient may receive one or more motivational messages based on the patient's compliance with a health regimen. A motivational message may be sent to a patient based on a compliance percentage and/or a range of compliance percentages over a specified period of time (i.e. a second notification visibility level). FIG. 14 illustrates an exemplary online form a member may use to create one or more motivational messages. As illustrated by FIG. 14, the member may select a lower threshold 1400 and upper threshold 1405 of a range of compliance, a start date 1410, an end date 1415, a delivery time 1420, a delivery frequency 1425 and/or the like. The member may also enter one or more motivational messages 1430. Table 1 illustrates exemplary compliance percentages and corresponding motivational messages that may be sent to a patient on a medication regimen.)
detect a triggering event associated with the user health-related event; ([Para. 0099] The health manager may send one or more messages to one or more of the patient and one or more caregivers if a compliance percentage falls below a specified threshold (i.e. triggering event). For example, the health manager may send a message to the patient and the patient's caregiver if the patient's compliance percentage for a specific medication falls below 50%.)
communicate, using the second notification visibility level, the notification associated with the user health-related event to a mobile device associated with the user based on detection of the triggering event. ([Para. 0101] the motivational message may be sent to the patient via an email, a text message, a multimedia message, a one-way binary SMS message, a binary SMS message, an automated phone call or the like. The patient may receive the motivational message on a mobile device, a personal computer and/or other similar computing device.)
Loncar does not explicitly teach, however Rack-Gomer teaches
wherein the first notification visibility level is a measure of the visibility to the user of a notification associated with the user health-related event ([Para. 0310] a tachometer-like display has a green section representing low urgency states, a yellow section representing medium urgency states, and a red section representing higher urgency states. The position of the needle indicates the current state, i.e., is tied to the determined GUI.)
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the method of monitoring a patient's compliance with a medication regimen as taught by Loncar and incorporate several or numerous factors in the determination of a glycemic urgency index as taught by Rack-Gomer, with the motivation of continuously monitoring patient blood glucose (Rack-Gomer Para. 0005).
REGARDING CLAIM 34
Claim(s) 34 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 2, thus Claim(s) 34 is/are similarly analyzed
and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 2.
REGARDING CLAIM 35
Claim(s) 35 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 3, thus Claim(s) 35 is/are similarly analyzed
and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 3.
REGARDING CLAIM 36
Claim(s) 36 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 4, thus Claim(s) 36 is/are similarly analyzed
and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 4.
REGARDING CLAIM 37
Claim(s) 37 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 5, thus Claim(s) 37 is/are similarly analyzed
and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 5.
REGARDING CLAIM 38
Claim(s) 38 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 6, thus Claim(s) 38 is/are similarly analyzed
and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 6.
REGARDING CLAIM 39
Claim(s) 39 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 7, thus Claim(s) 39 is/are similarly analyzed
and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 7.
REGARDING CLAIM 40
Claim(s) 40 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 8, thus Claim(s) 40 is/are similarly analyzed
and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 8.
REGARDING CLAIM 41
Claim(s) 41 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 9, thus Claim(s) 41 is/are similarly analyzed
and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 9.
REGARDING CLAIM 42
Claim(s) 42 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 10, thus Claim(s) 42 is/are similarly analyzed
and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 10.
REGARDING CLAIM 43
Claim(s) 43 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 11, thus Claim(s) 43 is/are similarly analyzed
and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 11.
REGARDING CLAIM 45
Claim(s) 45 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 13, thus Claim(s) 45 is/are similarly analyzed
and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 13.
REGARDING CLAIM 46
Claim(s) 46 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 14, thus Claim(s) 46 is/are similarly analyzed
and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 14.
REGARDING CLAIM 47
Claim(s) 47 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 15, thus Claim(s) 47 is/are similarly analyzed
and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 15.
REGARDING CLAIM 48
Claim(s) 48 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 16, thus Claim(s) 48 is/are similarly analyzed
and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 16.
Claim(s) 12 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loncar (US 20080238666 A1) in view of Rack-Gomer (US 20150289823 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20160117901 A1) in view of Fenske (US 20100102950 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 12
Loncar/ Rack-Gomer teach the method of claim 1,however Zhang further comprising:
determining that the context associated with the user health-related event matches the context of at least one other user health-related event, wherein the at least one other user health- related event is a non-diabetes related event; ([Para. 0019] Event generation devices (EGD) 340 (patient monitor) that detects clinical events relating to a patient's physiology. EGD can generates and sends an event message. Such an event message can comprise the identity of the EGD (EGD.ID), the type of event (cardiac, blood oxy., respiratory, etc.), patient clinical/physiological information pertaining to the event type (HB rate, blood oxy. level, respiratory frequency) (i.e. non-diabetes event).)
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the method of monitoring a patient's compliance with a medication regimen as taught by Loncar, several or numerous factors in the determination of a glycemic urgency index as taught by Rack-Gomer, and incorporate event notification system as taught by Zhang, with the motivation of managing the sending of alert messages to a caregiver as the result of receiving clinical information from monitoring equipment associated with a patient (Zhang Para. 0001).
Zhang does not explicitly teach, however Fenske teaches
and grouping the user health-related event with the at least one other user health-related event in a notification group, wherein the notification group is used to send a notification that indicates the user health-related event and the at least one other user health-related event. ([Para. 0033] Mapping the relationship between adverse outcome potential and medical intervention impact potential, other conditions either amounting to nominal alert conditions that may be actionable or non-alert conditions can, in combination, nevertheless, qualify as bona fide alert conditions when viewed in combination. FIG. 4 is a Venn diagram 60 showing, by way of example, a confluence 63 of a set of non-alert conditions 62a-c in the automated patient management environment 10 of FIG. 1. Each non-alert condition 62a-c either fails to qualify as a true alert condition or is, at best, an alert condition of nominal magnitude with non-actionable potential adverse outcome. When taken in combination 61, the confluence 63 of the individual non-alert conditions 62a-c signify a combined alert condition that indicates a strong potential for adverse outcome with correspondingly strong potential impact from medical intervention. [Para. 0037] Severity 72 assigns alert conditions or combined alert conditions into ad hoc groupings that can be associated with particular dispositions 71 or priorities 73. Severity levels can include labels, such as color coding, for instance, red, yellow, amber, and so forth, for each grouping to aid in understanding and usage. Severity 72 is tied to prioritization 73 and escalation 74, which respectively ranks multiple competing alert conditions and promotes actionable alert conditions that remain ignored or unaddressed.)
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the method of monitoring a patient's compliance with a medication regimen as taught by Loncar, several or numerous factors in the determination of a glycemic urgency index as taught by Rack-Gomer, an event notification system as taught by Zhang, and incorporate providing synergistic alert condition processing in an automated patient management system as taught by Fenske, with the motivation of providing efficient and effective delivery of health care (Fenske Para. 0002).
REGARDING CLAIM 44
Claim(s) 44 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 12, thus Claim(s) 43 is/are similarly analyzed
and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 12.
Claim(s) 17 and 49 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loncar (US 20080238666 A1) in view of Rack-Gomer (US 20150289823 A1) in view of Di Lascia (US 20160162656 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 17
Loncar/ Rack-Gomer teach the method of claim 1, however Di Lascia teaches wherein at least a portion of the data is received by the mobile device of the user upon scanning one or more of a bar code, a quick response (QR) code, a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, or a near field communication (NFC) tag. ([Para. 0062] patent registration system 50 may include a processing device, a code reader 10 that scans the tracking code for the medication product the patient is taking and a patient database 11 that stores at least patient information. In one example, the tracking code may be a symbol, a number, a code, a scanning bar, or a chip while the patient identifying information may only include a first and last name and an email address, which would typically be sufficient to individually identify a particular patient. Additional detailed information, such as that relevant to the patient's medical status, may also be included without limitation. The code reader 10 may also be any device that reads a tracking code and decodes information embedded in the code. The code reader 10 may be based on infrared (IR), imaging, radio frequency (RF) such as RFID and near field communication (NFC). The code reader may be a stationery flatbed code reading device, a hand scanner or any other type that may be suitable for scanning a barcode off a product or a package.
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the method of monitoring a patient's compliance with a medication regimen as taught by Loncar, several or numerous factors in the determination of a glycemic urgency index as taught by Rack-Gomer, and incorporate a patient registration system as taught by Di Lascia, with the motivation of monitoring and measuring acquisition pattern of medical products and further improving patient outcomes (Di Lascia Para. 0002).
REGARDING CLAIM 49
Claim(s) 49 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 17, thus Claim(s) 49 is/are similarly analyzed
and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 17.
Claim(s) 18- 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loncar (US 20080238666 A1) in view of Fenske (US 20100102950 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 18
Loncar teaches a method comprising:
logging a plurality of entries associated with a first user health-related event in a memory of a mobile device associated with a user, wherein the first user health-related event comprises one of a diabetes-related event or a non-diabetes related event; ([Para. 0008] identifying a patient, identifying an action to be performed by the patient (i.e. user health-related event. [Para. 0083] a patient may be asked to provide a measurement of blood sugar to assist the health manager in monitoring the patient's diabetes.)
determining a first context associated with the first user health-related event, wherein the first context comprises at least one of a time or a location associated with the first user health- related event; ([Para. 0008] identifying an action to be performed by the patient, identifying a time at which the action is to be performed.)
determining that the plurality of entries indicate that the user is above an adherence threshold for the first user health-related event; ([Para. 0098] the health manager may determine a compliance percentage for a patient. [Para. 0102] if a patient meets or exceeds a specified percentage of compliance for a certain month.)
logging a second user health-related event, wherein the second user health-related event comprises a diabetes-related event; ([Para. 0084] As illustrated by FIG. 9, an alert may be received 915 by a patient's mobile device 905 notifying the patient to take a health related measurement, such as measuring the patient's blood sugar level. For example, a patient may receive an SMS alert that reads, "Test blood sugar." [Para. 0085] the patient may take 920 the measurement and may enter 925 the measured value via the patient's mobile device 905. [Para. 0088] access 950 one or more online reports corresponding to the patient's measurements. )
determining a second context associated with the second user health-related event, wherein the second context comprises at least one of a time or a location associated with the second user health-related event; ([Para. 0008] Identifying an action to be performed by the patient, identifying a time at which the action is to be performed. [Para. 0091] a patient may receive a plurality of alerts on the patient's mobile device at substantially the same time. For example, if a patient is to take two medications at 3 PM, the mobile device may receive two alerts, where each alert corresponds to a medication. Once the patient has taken the medication that is the subject of the first alert, the patient may press or otherwise select a key or button on the mobile device to indicate compliance. In an embodiment, an audible alarm may continue to sound and information associated with the second medication may be displayed to the patient. This procedure may be repeated for any number of alerts.)
detecting a triggering event when user is estimated to perform the first user-health related event; ([Para. 0008] Identifying an action to be performed by the patient, identifying a time at which the action is to be performed.)
and communicating, via an audible alert or a visible alert on the mobile device, an alert to the user to perform at least the second user health-related event based on detection of the triggering event. ([Para. 0078] an alert may trigger the mobile device to sound one or more of an audible alarm, a visual alarm and a tactile alarm for a specified period of time, such as ten minutes. [Para. 0098] A compliance percentage may be the ratio of times the patient has confirmed an action to the number of times the patient was supposed to perform the action over a specified time period. [Para. 0100] A patient may receive one or more motivational messages based on the patient's compliance with a health regimen. A motivational message may be sent to a patient based on a compliance percentage and/or a range of compliance percentages over a specified period of time (i.e. a second notification visibility level). FIG. 14 illustrates an exemplary online form a member may use to create one or more motivational messages. As illustrated by FIG. 14, the member may select a lower threshold 1400 and upper threshold 1405 of a range of compliance, a start date 1410, an end date 1415, a delivery time 1420, a delivery frequency 1425 and/or the like. The member may also enter one or more motivational messages 1430. Table 1 illustrates exemplary compliance percentages and corresponding motivational messages that may be sent to a patient on a medication regimen.)
Loncar does not explicitly teach, however Fenske teaches
determining that the first context associated with the first user health-related event is within a predefined threshold of the second context associated with the second user health- related event; ([Para. 0030] Management 32 includes determining the appropriate disposition of each alert condition and can also include applying thresholds, determining severity, and prioritizing between multiple competing alert conditions. [Para. 0034] The individual non-alert conditions 62a-c can be defined for individual patients or groups of patients sharing common physiological conditions, clinical trajectories, medical histories, and so forth. For example, a moderate decrease in lead impedance coupled with a moderate decrease in R-wave amplitude with a slight increase in threshold could constitute an insulation break not normally identifiable by inspecting any of the parameters independently. )
in response to determining that the context associated with the first user health-related event is within the predefined threshold, grouping the first user health-related event with the second user health-related event in a notification group; ([Para. 0033] Mapping the relationship between adverse outcome potential and medical intervention impact potential, other conditions either amounting to nominal alert conditions that may be actionable or non-alert conditions can, in combination, nevertheless, qualify as bona fide alert conditions when viewed in combination. FIG. 4 is a Venn diagram 60 showing, by way of example, a confluence 63 of a set of non-alert conditions 62a-c in the automated patient management environment 10 of FIG. 1. Each non-alert condition 62a-c either fails to qualify as a true alert condition or is, at best, an alert condition of nominal magnitude with non-actionable potential adverse outcome. When taken in combination 61, the confluence 63 of the individual non-alert conditions 62a-c signify a combined alert condition that indicates a strong potential for adverse outcome with correspondingly strong potential impact from medical intervention. [Para. 0037] Severity 72 assigns alert conditions or combined alert conditions into ad hoc groupings that can be associated with particular dispositions 71 or priorities 73. Severity levels can include labels, such as color coding, for instance, red, yellow, amber, and so forth, for each grouping to aid in understanding and usage. Severity 72 is tied to prioritization 73 and escalation 74, which respectively ranks multiple competing alert conditions and promotes actionable alert conditions that remain ignored or unaddressed.)
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the method of monitoring a patient's compliance with a medication regimen as taught by Loncar and incorporate providing synergistic alert condition processing in an automated patient management system as taught by Fenske, with the motivation of providing efficient and effective delivery of health care (Fenske Para. 0002).
REGARDING CLAIM 19
Loncar/ Fenske teach The method of claim 18, further comprising adjusting a visibility of the alert in response to a number of times the second user health-related event is logged within a predefined period of time and the adherence threshold.
REGARDING CLAIM 20
Loncar/ Fenske teach The method of claim 18, wherein the alert is communicated based on the triggering event being detected for the first user-health related event, and wherein the first user- health related event being above the adherence threshold causes the visible alert or audible alert to fail to include information related specifically to the first user-health related event.
REGARDING CLAIM 21
Loncar/ Fenske teach the method of claim 18, Loncar further teaches wherein the alert is communicated at a notification visibility level which is determined based on the context. ([Para. 0008] identifying an action to be performed by the patient, identifying a time at which the action is to be performed.)
REGARDING CLAIM 22
The method of claim 21, Loncar further teaches wherein the notification visibility level comprises an intervention visibility level, a request input visibility level, a dashboard visibility level, or a hidden visibility level. ([Para. 0008] Identifying an action to be performed by the patient, identifying a time at which the action is to be performed. The alert may be configured to instruct the patient to perform the action. [Para. 0100] A patient may receive one or more motivational messages (i.e. intervention visibility level) based on the patient's compliance with a health regimen. In an embodiment, a motivational message may be sent to a patient based on a compliance percentage and/or a range of compliance percentages over a specified period of time.)
REGARDING CLAIM 23
Loncar/ Fenske teach the method of claim 22, Loncar further teaches wherein the intervention visibility level comprises communicating the notification to the mobile device of the user and to at least one other device. ([Para. 0009] notifying one or more of the patient and a caregiver. [Para. 0084] FIG. 9, an alert may be received 915 by a patient's mobile device 905 notifying the patient to take a health related measurement, such as measuring the patient's blood sugar level. For example, a patient may receive an SMS alert that reads, "Test blood sugar." [Para. 0099] The health manager may send one or more messages to one or more of the patient and one or more caregivers if a compliance percentage falls below a specified threshold.)
REGARDING CLAIM 24
Loncar/ Fenske teach the method of claim 22, Loncar further teaches wherein the request input visibility level comprises requesting the user to log completion of the user health-related event. ([Para. 0084] FIG. 9, an alert may be received 915 by a patient's mobile device 905 notifying the patient to take a health related measurement, such as measuring the patient's blood sugar level. For example, a patient may receive an SMS alert that reads, "Test blood sugar." [Para. 0085] The patient may take 920 the measurement and may enter 925 the measured value via the patient's mobile device 905. For example, the patient may take 920 a blood sugar reading and may enter 925 the blood sugar value on the mobile device 905. For example, the patient may press the `Reply` button on the mobile device 905, enter 925 the measured value on the mobile device 905 and press the `Send` button to transmit the value to the health manager 900.)
REGARDING CLAIM 25
Loncar/ Fenske teach the method of claim 22, Loncar further teaches wherein the dashboard visibility level comprises displaying a list of the user health-related event and at least one other user health-related event to be completed in a given time period. ([Para. 0078] An alert is received by a mobile device, information associated with the action to be performed by the patient may be displayed to the patient. For example, an alert may be received by a patient's mobile device reminding the patient to take a medication. One or more of the medication's name, the strength of the medication, the units of measure associated with the medication, the form of the medication (i.e., pill, liquid, etc.), an embedded link to an image of the medication and the like may be displayed to the patient on a display screen of the mobile device.)
REGARDING CLAIM 26
Loncar/ Fenske teach the method of claim 25, Loncar further teaches wherein the list is organized based on context. ([Para. 0078] when an alert is received by a mobile device, information associated with the action to be performed by the patient may be displayed to the patient. For example, an alert may be received by a patient's mobile device reminding the patient to take a medication. One or more of the medication's name, the strength of the medication, the units of measure associated with the medication, the form of the medication (i.e., pill, liquid, etc.), an embedded link to an image of the medication and the like may be displayed to the patient on a display screen of the mobile device.)
REGARDING CLAIM 27
Loncar/ Fenske teach the method of claim 22, Loncar further teaches wherein the hidden visibility level comprises hiding the notification from the user. ([Para. 0331] The GUI determination and actionable alert may be provided within a game, either to hide the data such that only the user can discern the same, or in such a way that favorable GUI determinations lead to favorable game outcomes.]
REGARDING CLAIM 28
Loncar/ Fenske teach the method of claim 18, wherein the request input visibility level is selected as the first notification visibility level when the user health-related event is new to the user. ([Para. 0064] If a patient is prescribed a new medication, the patient may add information regarding the new medication (i.e. user health-related event), such as the medication's name, dosage, frequency and/or the like to a health regimen so the health manager may generate alerts to remind the patient to take the new medication.)
REGARDING CLAIM 29
Loncar/ Fenske teach the method of claim 18, Loncar further teaches wherein the user health-related event is associated with a plurality of adherence levels. ([Para. 0086] The health manager 900 may receive a message having a measured glucose level and may determine whether the measured value is within a predefined range. [Para. 0100] As illustrated by FIG. 14, the member may select a lower threshold 1400 and upper threshold 1405 of a range of compliance. [Para. 0102] Table 2 illustrates exemplary ranges of compliance percentages and corresponding rewards for a patient being treated with Medication A according to an embodiment.)
REGARDING CLAIM 30
Loncar/ Fenske teach the method of claim 29, Loncar further teaches wherein each of the plurality of adherence levels comprises an upper adherence threshold and a lower adherence threshold. ([Para. 0086] The health manager 900 may receive a message having a measured glucose level and may determine whether the measured value is within a predefined range. [Para. 0100] As illustrated by FIG. 14, the member may select a lower threshold 1400 and upper threshold 1405 of a range of compliance. As illustrated by FIG. 14, the member may select a lower threshold 1400 and upper threshold 1405 of a range of compliance. [Para. 0102] Table 2 illustrates exemplary ranges of compliance percentages and corresponding rewards for a patient being treated with Medication A according to an embodiment.)
REGARDING CLAIM 31
Loncar/ Fenske teach the method of claim 29, Loncar further teaches wherein the plurality of adherence levels are adjustable based on one or more of a characteristic of the user, an age of the user health-related event, a characteristic of the user health-related event, a number of times adherence of the user health-related event has been logged within a predefined time period, or the frequency of the user health-related event. ([Para. 0086] The health manager 900 may receive a message having a measured glucose level and may determine whether the measured value is within a predefined range. [Para. 0100] As illustrated by FIG. 14, the member may select a lower threshold 1400 and upper threshold 1405 of a range of compliance. As illustrated by FIG. 14, the member may select a lower threshold 1400 and upper threshold 1405 of a range of compliance, a start date 1410, an end date 1415, a delivery time 1420, a delivery frequency 1425 and/or the like. [Para. 0102] Table 2 illustrates exemplary ranges of compliance percentages and corresponding rewards for a patient being treated with Medication A according to an embodiment.)
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loncar (US 20080238666 A1) in view of Fenske (US 20100102950 A1) in view of in view of Di Lascia (US 20160162656 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 32
Loncar/ Fenske teach the method of claim 18, however Di Lascia teaches wherein the data is received by the mobile device of the user upon scanning one or more of a bar code, a quick response (QR) code, a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, or a near field communication (NFC) tag. ([Para. 0062] patent registration system 50 may include a processing device, a code reader 10 that scans the tracking code for the medication product the patient is taking and a patient database 11 that stores at least patient information. In one example, the tracking code may be a symbol, a number, a code, a scanning bar, or a chip while the patient identifying information may only include a first and last name and an email address, which would typically be sufficient to individually identify a particular patient. Additional detailed information, such as that relevant to the patient's medical status, may also be included without limitation. The code reader 10 may also be any device that reads a tracking code and decodes information embedded in the code. The code reader 10 may be based on infrared (IR), imaging, radio frequency (RF) such as RFID and near field communication (NFC). The code reader may be a stationery flatbed code reading device, a hand scanner or any other type that may be suitable for scanning a barcode off a product or a package.
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the method of monitoring a patient's compliance with a medication regimen as taught by Loncar, providing synergistic alert condition processing in an automated patient management system as taught by Fenske, and incorporate a patient registration system as taught by Di Lascia, with the motivation of monitoring and measuring acquisition pattern of medical products and further improving patient outcomes (Di Lascia Para. 0002).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mok et al (US 20130226617 A1), which discloses on generating a guideline for a patient using a selected treatment plan related to a medical condition.
Tracy et al (US 20120253835 A1), which discloses on generating one or more customizable health care alerts.
Grady et al, Diabetes App-Related Text Messages From Health Care Professionals in Conjunction With a New Wireless Glucose Meter With a Color Range Indicator Improves Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: Randomized Controlled Trial, which discloses on assessing changes in glycemic control and overall experiences of patients and HCPs using the app in conjunction with the wireless OneTouch Verio Flex blood glucose meter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patricia K Edouard whose telephone number is (571)272-6084. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fonya M Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/P.K.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/FONYA M LONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights