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 the Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are as follows:
“Intervention component” recited in Claim 8;
“Dropout prediction engine” recited in Claim 10; and
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 recites “receiving…a response from the patient.” Claim 1, from which Claim 10 depends, recites “wherein a response indicates a true dropout cause for the patient.” It is unclear whether the “a response” in Claim 10 refers to the previously recited “a response” in Claim 1 or if the “a response” recited in Claim 10 refers to a different response. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the “a response” recited in Claim 1 as reciting the same “a response” recited in Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 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.
Step 1
Claims 1-15 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-10 are drawn to a method for predicting patient dropout, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 11-15 are drawn to a system for predicting patient dropout, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1, which is representative of the inventive concept, recites: A method for predicting a likelihood of dropout and a root dropout cause for a patient under remote monitoring using a dropout prediction system, the method comprising:
obtaining, from an electronic patient records database, a plurality of records for a patient under remote monitoring by a care provider;
generating a chronological snapshot of the patient, wherein the chronological snapshot includes a plurality of dropout prediction features extracted from the plurality of records obtained from the electronic patient records database;
generating a likelihood of dropout for the patient by comparing the chronological snapshot of the patient with at least one of: a clinically-validated care pathway, an earlier chronological snapshot of the patient; and one or more similar patient snapshots;
predicting a root dropout cause for the patient based on one or more of the dropout prediction features of the chronological snapshot of the patient;
determining one or more recommended interventions tailored to the patient based on the generated likelihood of dropout and the predicted root dropout cause, wherein the one or more recommended interventions are intended to prevent dropout of the patient from remote monitoring by the care provider;
presenting to the care provider, by a care provider interface of the dropout prediction system, the one or more recommended interventions,
determining a level of accuracy for the root dropout cause predicted for the patient; and
if the level of accuracy is below a threshold, automatically initiating, by a patient interface of the dropout prediction system, a patient outreach action, wherein a response indicates a true dropout cause for the patient.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case, the steps of obtaining patient records, generating a chronological snapshot including dropout prediction features based on the obtained patient records, generating a likelihood of dropout, predicting the root dropout cause, determining recommended interventions, presenting the recommended interventions, determining a level of accuracy for the root dropout cause, and initiating a patient outreach action when the level of accuracy is below a threshold are reasonably interpreted as following rules or instructions in order to provide a care provider with recommendations, and/or instructing a care provider to contact a patient), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea(s) are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claim 11 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 1, because the only difference between Claims 1 and 11 is that Claim 1 recites a method, whereas Claim 11 recites a system and its associated structural limitations (i.e. the dropout prediction engine, the processors, the care provider interface), which, as will be further explained below, are interpreted as additional elements.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-15 include other limitations, for example Claims 2 and 12 recite that the likelihood of dropout is for a first future time, and further recites predicting a second root dropout cause and a second likelihood of dropout for a second future time, Claim 3 recites the timing of the first future time and the second future time, Claims 4-5 recite types of patient records, Claims 6 and 13 recite that the generating of the likelihood of dropout includes comparing the chronological snapshot to similar patient snapshots using an unsupervised hierarchical clustering technique, Claim 7 recites types of features extracted from the patient records, Claim 8 recites limitations pertaining to predicting the root dropout cause including an intervention component, Claims 9 and 15 recite recording the implementation of the recommended interventions, determining an impact of the implemented interventions on the dropout prediction features, and updating the intervention component based on the impact, and Claim 10 recites receiving a patient response, recording the response, and updating a dropout prediction engine based on the response, and Claim 14 recites utilizing a trained machine learning model to make the patient dropout prediction, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04, and/or do not further narrow the abstract idea and instead only recite additional elements, which will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-15 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1 and 11.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1 and 11 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the electronic patient records database, the care provider interface, the processors, the dropout prediction engine) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the electronic patient records database, the care provider interface, the processors, the dropout prediction engine, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see pg. 17, line 14, through pg. 18, line 25 of the as-filed Specification, and see MPEP 2106.05(f);
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language reciting that the extracted features from the patient records are dropout prediction features, and the claim language reciting presenting the recommended interventions to a healthcare provider, which amount to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea – for example, the recitation of presenting the recommended interventions to a care provider, which amounts to an insignificant application, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-15 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (e.g. the trained machine learning model recited in dependent Claim 14), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of patient records recited in dependent Claims 4-5 and the types of features recited in dependent Claim 7), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent Claims 1 and 11, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence Claims 1-15 do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the electronic patient records database, the care provider interface, the processors, the dropout prediction engine), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the additional elements comprise limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The present Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
Pg. 17, line 14, through pg. 18, line 25 of the as-filed Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the electronic patient records database, the care provider interface, the processors, the dropout prediction engine) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. storing data, obtaining data, analyzing the data, and displaying the results of the analysis) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives patient data from an electronic records database over a network, e.g. see pg. 12, lines 3-14 of the as-filed Specification;
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the current invention merely recites the storing of patient data in an electronic records database;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the current invention recites storing patient data in an electronic records database, and retrieving the patient data from storage in order to ultimately produce and present one or more recommended interventions determined from the retrieved patient data;
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-15 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of patient records recited in dependent Claims 4-5 and the types of features recited in dependent Claim 7), electronic recordkeeping (e.g. the storing of the record of the implementation of the interventions and the response from the patient recited in dependent Claims 8-10), and/or the limitations recited by the dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claims 1 and 11, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Hence, Claims 1-15 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-15 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (US 2021/00134431) in view of Haun (US 2022/0031955).
Regarding Claim 1, Garcia teaches the following: A method for predicting a likelihood of dropout and a root dropout cause for a patient under remote monitoring (The patient treatment is monitored at the patient’s home, e.g. see [0011] and [0067].) using a dropout prediction system, the method comprising:
obtaining, from an electronic patient records database, a plurality of records for a patient under remote monitoring by a care provider (The system includes a plurality of clinics and hospitals that each maintain electronic medical databases (i.e. any of which may be interpreted as a “electronic patient records database”), e.g. see Garcia [0086], wherein the databases contain patient specific treatment and prescription data obtained as log files from therapy machines, e.g. see Garcia [0087] and [0090], and wherein the patient data may be transmitted to a system hub and subsequently to a clinician device upon request, e.g. see Garcia [0089] and [0124].);
generating a chronological snapshot of the patient (The system utilizes a segment of the patient and treatment data (i.e. a chronological snapshot) to compare to a training dataset, e.g. see Garcia [0174]-[0175] and [0180], wherein the patient and treatment data includes an indication of a date and/or time a treatment was administered, e.g. see Garcia [0132].), wherein the chronological snapshot includes a plurality of dropout prediction features extracted from the plurality of records obtained from the electronic patient records database (The patient and treatment data includes parameters, at least three to five or more of which are compared to training data in order to determine a predicted probability that the patient will stop treatment, e.g. see Garcia [0174]-[0175].);
generating a likelihood of dropout for the patient by comparing the chronological snapshot of the patient with at least one of: a clinically-validated care pathway, an earlier chronological snapshot of the patient; and one or more similar patient snapshots (The system determines a likelihood that the patient may stop or reduce treatments (i.e. a likelihood of dropout) as a concern score, wherein the determination utilizes an AI model trained using training data set that comprises treatment data and/or logs for patients (i.e. the chronological snapshot), wherein the treatment data is compared to identified patients that stopped treatment (i.e. one or more similar patient snapshots), the history of treatments for the patient (i.e. an earlier chronological snapshot of the patient), e.g. see Garcia [0172]-[0174].);
predicting a root dropout cause for the patient based on one or more of the dropout prediction features of the chronological snapshot of the patient (The system identifies crucial parameters or contributing factors that cause a high concern score, e.g. see Garcia [0177], Fig. 17.);
determining one or more recommended interventions tailored to the patient based on the generated likelihood of dropout and the predicted root dropout cause (The system includes a guidance processor that determines guidance that corresponds to the concern score (i.e. the likelihood of dropout) and the crucial parameters or contributing factors (i.e. the predicted root dropout cause), e.g. see Garcia [0209]-[0210], Fig. 19.), wherein the one or more recommended interventions are intended to prevent dropout of the patient from remote monitoring by the care provider (The guidance is intended to help improve the patient’s adherence (i.e. prevent dropout) to a prescribed therapy, e.g. see Garcia [0210], and include various actions such as contacting the patient, e.g. see Garcia [0162].); and
presenting to the care provider, via a care provider interface of the dropout prediction system, the one or more recommended interventions (The guidance is displayed to a user, for example a clinician, e.g. see Garcia [0210].),
But Garcia does not teach and Haun teaches the following:
determining a level of accuracy for the root dropout cause predicted for the patient (The system calculates a confidence score, e.g. see Haun [0403]-[0411] and [0421].); and
if the level of accuracy is below a threshold (The system compares the confidence score against a threshold, e.g. see Haun [0421].), automatically initiating, by a patient interface of the dropout prediction system, a patient outreach action, wherein a response indicates a true dropout cause for the patient (If the confidence score is below the threshold, the system asks (i.e. initiates outreach to) a patient for confirmation, e.g. see Haun [0421]. Additionally, the patient response to the question indicates a reason (i.e. a true cause) for the low confidence score, e.g. see Haun [0421].);
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify Garcia to incorporate the accuracy and the patient outreach as taught by Haun in order to improve the reliability of the calculations, e.g. see Haun [0029].
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Garcia and Haun teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Garcia further teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein generating a likelihood of dropout for the patient includes generating a first likelihood of dropout for the patient corresponding to a first future time and generating a second likelihood of dropout for the patient corresponding to a second future time (The prediction that the patient will stop treatment is made for a period of at least five to seven days in advance, and up to 21 to 30 days in advance, e.g. see Garcia [0173].);
wherein predicting a root dropout cause for the patient includes predicting a first root dropout cause for the patient corresponding to the first future time and predicting a second root dropout cause for the patient corresponding to the second future time (The system determines critical parameters or contributing factors that cause a high concern score, e.g. see Garcia [0177].); and
wherein the one or more recommended interventions include a first recommended intervention determined based on the first likelihood of dropout generated for the patient and the first root dropout cause predicted for the patient, and a second recommended intervention determined based on the second likelihood of dropout generated for the patient and the second root dropout cause predicted for the patient (The system includes a guidance processor that determines guidance that corresponds to the concern score (i.e. the likelihood of dropout) and the crucial parameters or contributing factors (i.e. the predicted root dropout cause), e.g. see Garcia [0209]-[0210], Fig. 19.).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Garcia and Haun teaches the limitations of Claim 2, and Garcia further teaches the following:
The method of claim 2, wherein the first future time is between 1 and 14 days from a current time, and the second future time is between 1 and 6 months from the current time (The prediction that the patient will stop treatment is made for a period of at least five to seven days in advance (i.e. between 1 and 14 days), and up to 21 to 30 days in advance (i.e. between 1 and 6 months), e.g. see Garcia [0173].).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Garcia and Haun teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Garcia further teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of records for the patient under remote monitoring by the care provider include at least one of: identification information for the patient; medical history for the patient; treatment history for the patient; medical directives for the patient; unique identifiers/fingerprints of patient's virtual trajectory through a patient interface based on abstraction of virtual movements represented in a virtual trajectory of human-machine interaction within patient interfacing computer program or application; and one or more physiological measurements taken from the patient (The patient data includes patient-specific treatment and prescription data (i.e. medical directives for the patient), e.g. see Garcia [0087], and patient data may be determined from treatment data, wherein the patient data includes prescription history (i.e. treatment history), and a patient identifier (i.e. identification information), e.g. see Garcia [0065].).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Garcia and Haun teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Garcia further teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of dropout prediction features extracted from the plurality of records includes at least one of: a response time from the care provider to a patient-initiated action; a history of challenges involving use of a virtual care solution by the patient; clinical trends for the patient; user interaction data for the patient; and portal use data showing frequency of use of specific components over time (The system identifies the crucial parameters or contributing factors causing a high concern score, wherein the crucial parameters include escalating messages/alarms/alerts between treatments (i.e. which may be interpreted as a history of challenges involving use of a virtual care solution by the patient and/or user interaction data for the patient), e.g. see Garcia [0187].).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Garcia and Haun teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Garcia further teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein an intervention component is configured to predict the root dropout cause for the patient based on one or more of the dropout prediction features of the chronological snapshot of the patient (The concern score is calculated based on at least three to five (or more) parameters (i.e. dropout prediction features), wherein the calculation is performed utilizing one or more AI models (i.e. an intervention component), e.g. see Garcia [0172]-[0174].).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Garcia and Haun teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Haun further teaches the following: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, via the patient interface, a response from the patient, wherein the response indicates a true dropout cause for the patient (The patient may respond to the question indicating a reason (i.e. a true cause) for the low confidence score, e.g. see Haun [0421].) ; and
recording, in the electronic patient records database, the response (The responses to the queries is stored, e.g. see Haun [0026].); and
updating, based on the received response, a dropout prediction engine (The system incorporates (i.e. updates) the historical data (i.e. including stored responses) into a calculation (i.e. a prediction engine), e.g. see Haun [0029].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify Garcia to incorporate querying the patient and incorporating the answer into future calculations as taught by Haun in order to improve the reliability of the calculations, e.g. see Haun [0029].
Regarding Claims 11-12, the limitations of Claims 11-12 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claims 1-2, with the sole difference being that Claims 1-2 recites a method, whereas Claims 11-12 recites a system and its associated structural limitations. Specifically pertaining to Claims 11-12, Examiner notes that Garcia teaches a method and a system including a processor that performs the aforementioned functions, e.g. see Garcia [0088], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claims 1-2 are similarly applied to Claims 11-12.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Garcia and Haun teaches the limitations of Claim 11, and Garcia further teaches the following:
The dropout prediction system of claim 11, wherein the dropout prediction engine is configured to predict the root dropout cause for the patient based on one or more of the dropout prediction features of the chronological snapshot of the patient using a trained dropout prediction model (The concern score is calculated using a trained AI model, e.g. see Garcia [0172]-[0178].), the dropout prediction model being trained on a training dataset by a machine learning algorithm (The AI model is trained using a training data set, e.g. see Garcia [0173].).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Garcia and Haun in view of Sadler (US 2009/0240525).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Garcia and Haun teaches the limitations of Claim 4, but does not teach and Sadler teaches the following:
The method of claim 4, wherein the plurality of records for the patient under remote monitoring by the care provider further includes at least one of: virtual care solution usage information; a technology affinity measured for the patient; and feedback information from one or more historical or concurrent patients (The system includes patient medical records which include recorded telemedicine virtual visit sessions (i.e. virtual care solution usage information), e.g. see Sadler [0022]-[0023].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Garcia and Haun to incorporate storing a record of patient telemedicine virtual visit sessions as taught by Sadler in order to reduce the number of patient errors, fraud, and improve overall efficiency, e.g. see Sadler [0026].
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Garcia and Haun in view of Sobol (US 2019/0209022).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Garcia and Haun teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Sobol teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein generating a likelihood of dropout for the patient by comparing the chronological snapshot of the patient with one or more similar patient snapshots includes comparing the chronological snapshot of the patient with one or more similar patient snapshots using an unsupervised hierarchical clustering technique (The system analyzes acquired data from patients with similar health demographics utilizing an unsupervised clustering model, e.g. see Sobol [0235].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Garcia and Haun to incorporate utilizing the unsupervised clustering to analyze the similar patient data as taught by Sobol because it is particularly good at segmenting the data into several different groups, e.g. see Sobol [0235].
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations of Claim 13 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 6, with the sole difference being that Claim 6 recites a method, whereas Claim 13 recites a system and its associated structural limitations. Specifically pertaining to Claim 13, Examiner notes that Garcia teaches a method and a system including a processor that performs the aforementioned functions, e.g. see Garcia [0088], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 6 are similarly applied to Claim 13.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Garcia and Haun in view of Perkins (US 2020/0227172).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Garcia and Haun teaches the limitations of Claim 8, but does not teach and Perkins teaches the following: The method of claim 8, further comprising:
recording, in the electronic patient records database, the implementation of one or more of the recommended interventions by the care provider (The system collects data over time including data about actions that individuals take with respect to recommendations, e.g. see Perkins [0099].);
determining an impact of the one or more recommended interventions implemented by the care provider on the plurality of dropout prediction features extracted from the plurality of records (The actions taken are evaluated for their correlative and/or causative properties (i.e. impact) with respect to an individual’s health indicators, e.g. see Perkins [0099].); and
updating the intervention component based on the impact determined for the one or more recommended interventions implemented by the care provider (The system includes one or more models based on neural networks, e.g. see Perkins [0096], wherein the models are updated to reflect the increasing or decreasing amounts of correlation and/or causation for the recommendations and the individual’s health indicators, e.g. see Perkins [0099].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Garcia and Haun to incorporate evaluating the impact of the actions taken and updating the model based on the impact as taught by Perkins in order to improve the accuracy of the health recommendations, e.g. see Perkins [0114].
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations of Claim 15 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 9, with the sole difference being that Claim 9 recites a method, whereas Claim 15 recites a system and its associated structural limitations. Specifically pertaining to Claim 15, Examiner notes that Garcia teaches a method and a system including a processor that performs the aforementioned functions, e.g. see Garcia [0088], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 9 are similarly applied to Claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed September 15, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-15 under nonstatutory double patenting have been fully considered and, in combination with the claim amendments, are persuasive. The nonstatutory double patenting rejections of Claims 1-15 have been withdrawn, as the current claim language is sufficiently distinguished from the claim language of copending Application No. 18/542971.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed September 15, 2025, with respect to the interpretations of Claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered, and are partially persuasive.
As an initial matter, Claims 11-15 are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because Claim 11 recites one or more processors configured to perform the functions of the dropout prediction engine and hence the one or more processors are interpreted as sufficient structure to perform these functions such that the aforementioned terms should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Additionally, the “patient interface” recited in Claims 4 and 10, and the “care provider interface” recited in Claims 1-15 are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because an “interface” is not properly interpreted as a generic placeholder and/or a nonce term used as a substitute for “means.”
However, the “intervention component” recited in Claim 8, and the “dropout prediction engine” recited in Claims 10 are nonetheless interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because a “component” and an “engine” are properly interpreted as generic placeholders and/or nonce terms used as a substitute for “means,” are modified by functional language (i.e. predicting the root dropout cause and being updated respectively), and are not modified by sufficient structure (e.g. a computer processor).
For the aforementioned reasons, the “intervention component” recited in Claim 8 and the “dropout prediction engine” recited in Claim 10 are nonetheless interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed September 15, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and, in combination with the claim amendments, are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn. However, Examiner notes that Claim 10 is presently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to the newly amended claim language.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed September 15, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that the claimed invention is patent eligible because it recites limitations that are “more than simple generic post-solution activity” and instead “convert raw medical data into a real-time, patient specific intervention with the option for a patient response,” e.g. see pg. 8 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Examiner does not dispute Applicant’s characterization of the invention converting medical data into patient intervention data. However, even assuming, arguendo, that this is accurate, as shown above, these limitations are directed towards the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activities – specifically following rules or instructions in order to provide a care provider with recommendations, and/or instructing a care provider to contact a patient. Examiner does not characterize the aforementioned limitations as post-solution activity, but instead asserts that they are part of the overall abstract idea.
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed September 15, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-4, 7-8, 11-12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and, in combination with the claim amendments, are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 1-4, 7-8, 11-12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been withdrawn. However, Examiner notes that Claims 1-15 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 due to the current claim amendments, for the reasons shown above and as will be further explained below with regards to 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed September 15, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicants allege that the limitations amended from Claim 10 into Claims 1 and 11 are distinguished from the teachings of Haun because merely asking a patient for confirmation of an injected dose is a “very different” concept than “initiating a patient outreach action that includes the option for a patient response,” e.g. see pgs. 8-9 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim language of “initiating…a patient outreach action” “wherein a response indicates a true dropout cause for the patient” may be reasonably interpreted as reaching out to the patient for the patient to provide a response indicating a true dropout cause. Similarly, Haun recites “if the confidence score is less than the confidence threshold, the user interphase will need to ask the user to confirm the injected dose,” e.g. see Haun [0421], which teaches asking a patient to provide a confirmation of compliance for a medication regimen. Additionally, Garcia (which Haun modifies) teaches “[determining] at least three to five top contributing factors or attributes that influenced the analysis,” wherein the analysis is for “[identifying] patients that are deemed a high risk to reduce or stop treatments,” e.g. see Garcia [0062], and wherein the recommended actions include contacting the patient, e.g. see Garcia [0162]. That is, Haun is cited to teach prompting the user for a response in response to the confidence score being below a threshold, where Garcia also teaches that a recommended action includes contacting the patient. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify Garcia to incorporate performing the patient outreach in response to a score being below a threshold as taught by Haun in order to improve the reliability of the calculations, e.g. see Haun [0029].
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469)295-9171. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN P GO/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights