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 .
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 16 recites “A computer readable medium that stores a program that causes a computer to execute the patient information processing method” storing instructions that perform various functions. In the Specification of the present application, the “computer readable medium” is not excluding transmission media (see paragraph [0027], [0042]). Further the claim recites a “computer readable medium that stores a program”, and the specification fails to provide a definition for that term. It also does not provide any indication that such storage medium is non-transitory. Thus, the broadest, reasonable interpretation of “computer readable medium” encompasses non-statutory subject matter (transmission media) that is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Accordingly, Claim 16 fails to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claim 1, 13, 17-18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites determining a display order of the pieces of patient information to be displayed on a patient information list screen based on first information and second information different from the first information, wherein the determining the display order includes determining the display order of the pieces of patient information based on the first information such that the pieces of patient information to be displayed on the patient information list screen are displayed early according to a value of the first information, and determining a display order of patient information of patients having the same value of the first information based on the second information.
The limitation of determining a display order of the pieces of patient information to be displayed on a patient information list screen based on first information and second information different from the first information, wherein the determining the display order includes determining the display order of the pieces of patient information based on the first information such that the pieces of patient information to be displayed on the patient information list screen are displayed early according to a value of the first information, and determining a display order of patient information of patients having the same value of the first information based on the second information, are similar to the certain methods of organizing human activity other than having the recitation of a patient information processing method executed by one or more processors, the method comprising.
Other than the recited elements of a patient information processing method executed by one or more processors, the method comprising, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from being a method of organizing basic human activity and from practically being performed without a computer.
The functionality of additional element “obtaining a plurality of pieces of patient information each of which is associated with respective one of a plurality of patients” amounts to data gathering which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
Also the functions of determining a display order of the pieces of patient information to be displayed on a patient information list screen based on first information and second information different from the first information, wherein the determining the display order includes determining the display order of the pieces of patient information based on the first information such that the pieces of patient information to be displayed on the patient information list screen are displayed early according to a value of the first information, and determining a display order of patient information of patients having the same value of the first information based on the second information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is an action of certain methods of organizing human activity, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claimed elements recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements elements “processors”, “screen” are generic computer components is nothing more than a technological term for storing information and using generic computer/server to perform the claimed abstract idea using a generic computer elements. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-15 further limits the abstract ideas of independent claims 1, 13, 17-20, do not include any additional elements, and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-15 are not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 10-12 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levin et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0242973) in view of Rickard (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0228502).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Levin discloses a patient information processing method executed by one or more processors, the method comprising [see para. 0014; a computing device selected from a group of a personal computer, laptop, smartphone, tablet, server, and cloud based computing device]:
obtaining a plurality of pieces of patient information each of which is associated with respective one of a plurality of patients [see para. 0013-0014; Gathering data related to the potential patients includes gathering any of a group of demographics (age and gender), vital signs (temperature, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation), complaint(s), medical/surgical history, chronic conditions, and mode of arrival which corresponds to retrieving multiple pieces of patient information vitals, risk factors];
and determining a display order of the pieces of patient information to be displayed on a patient information list screen based on first information [see para. 0014; A patient's needs in the ED at triage are predicted using data selected from a group of (1) in-hospital (including ED) mortality, (2) intensive care unit admission, (3) emergent surgical procedure including catheterization, and (4) inpatient hospitalization, (5) other acute clinical outcomes available in electronic medical record. The system includes a display. The display can show a specific patient score as well as a heatmap of patient scores for the ED; which corresponds to ordering of patients by triage level and scores used to rank patients in the list and sorting patients information] and second information different from the first information, wherein the determining the display order includes determining the display order of the pieces of patient information based on the first information such that the pieces of patient information to be displayed on the patient information list screen are displayed early according to a value of the first information [see para. 0023, 0028 and figures 1, 3; Data entered into Epic at triage will be automatically communicated to the E-triage application. These fields and layout mimic the currently existing triage interface. It's important to note the 3 questions below the “Electronic Triage Level Recommendation” highlight requirements to maintain some nurse judgment by including an override feature. The frequency, type (i.e., under-triage or over-triage) and reasons for override will be collected by the application and explicitly analyzed to improve E-triage iteratively. However, it can also transform the triage level data for a number of patients waiting in the ED into a visual representation of patients and priority, for example as a heatmap of patients waiting for care; which corresponds to high priority patients are displayed at the top patients list according to the value of the first information]; however, Levin fails to explicitly teach
determining a display order of patient information of patients having the same value of the first information based on the second information.
Rickard discloses determining a display order of patient information of patients having the same value of the first information based on the second information [see para. 0016; a particular hospital might have 36 patient suites in an emergency room and can manually or dynamically allocate a first subset of the suites (e.g., 8 patient suites) to Pool A patients, a second subset of the suites (e.g., 14 patient suites) to Pool B patients, and a third subset of the suites (e.g., 14 patient suites) to Pool C patients. A human administrator of the hospital and/or a supervisory information device can reallocate emergency room suites to different categories based upon patient needs and/or available medical resources on a given day at a given time].
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Levin and Rickard before the affective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, system that collect and display patient information of Levin to include system that display patient related and perform multi-attribute ordering, as taught by Rickard. One would have been obvious and predictable improvement results that enhances clarity, usability and clinical workflow efficiency and display patient related data.
Regarding claim 2, Levin discloses wherein the first information is determined according to an input operation of a user on the patient information list screen [see para. 0021; patients based upon clinical information routinely collected at triage which include basic demographics (age and gender), vital signs (temperature, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation), complaint(s), medical/surgical history, chronic conditions, and mode of arrival].
Regarding claim 3, Rickard discloses wherein the second information is automatically determined without an input operation of a user on the patient information list screen [see para. 0028; The readings and assessments can be automatically and/or manually transferred via a wirelessly transmitting information device (e.g., a smart phone and/or tablet). Patients can be automatically and/or with intervention by emergency response professionals and/or hospital professionals categorized into Pool A, Pool B, or Pool C. An automatic mode and a manual mode for allocating resources. When in the manual mode a human, such as an emergency room physician, can categorize the patient into one of Pool A, Pool B, or Pool C and/or can assign an emergency suite and/or other resources for treatment. When in automatic mode, an information device categorizes the patient into one of Pool A, Pool B, or Pool C and/or can assign an emergency suite and/or other resources for treatment].
Regarding claim 4, Levin discloses further comprising: displaying the patient information list screen on which the plurality of pieces of patient information are displayed in the determined display order [see para. 0021, 0022; Vital signs are categorized as normal or gradations of abnormal. Medical ontologies derived from clinician consensus (modified-Delphi technique) and data from multiple sites have been used to categorize text-based complaints, history, and chronic conditions into clinically meaningful categories. An example of categorization of chief complaints for this may be seen in Table 1 below. Feature selection methods may be applied (or not) to optimize the grouping structure of these text-based predictors to maximize predictive performance with respect to our two outcomes; which corresponds to the patient pieces display order].
Regarding claim 6, Ricard discloses wherein the second information is information related to a predetermined operation of the user for each piece of patient information displayed on the patient information list screen [see para. 0023, 0032; The hospital information management system can also be dynamically updated as emergency room resources are allocated to walk-in patients, which are also categorized in one of Pool A, Pool B, or Pool C].
Regarding claim 7, Levin discloses wherein the second information is information related to a comment for each piece of patient information, and the step of determining the display order includes a step of determining the display order of the patient information of the patients having the same value of the first information based on the information related to the comment associated with each piece of patient information [see para. 0023, 0028 and figures 1, 3; Data entered into Epic at triage will be automatically communicated to the E-triage application. These fields and layout mimic the currently existing triage interface. It's important to note the 3 questions below the “Electronic Triage Level Recommendation” highlight requirements to maintain some nurse judgment by including an override feature. The frequency, type (i.e., under-triage or over-triage) and reasons for override will be collected by the application and explicitly analyzed to improve E-triage iteratively. However, it can also transform the triage level data for a number of patients waiting in the ED into a visual representation of patients and priority, for example as a heatmap of patients waiting for care; which corresponds to high priority patients are displayed at the top patients list according to the value of the first information].
Regarding claim 10, Levin discloses wherein the second information is information indicating the number of days in a hospital of each patient, and the step of determining the display order includes a step of determining the display order of the patient information of the patients having the same value of the first information based on the number of days in a hospital of each patient [see para. 0028 and figure 3; a display according to the present invention shows a triage level for a patient in question. However, it can also transform the triage level data for a number of patients waiting in the ED into a visual representation of patients and priority, for example as a heatmap of patients waiting for care].
Regarding claim 11, Levin discloses wherein the second information is information related to an attribute of the user, and the step of determining the display order includes a step of determining the display order of the patient information of the patients having the same value of the first information based on the attribute of the user [see para. 0024 and figure 3; a user interface image from an input/output device. User interface image information comprising a date that the output was generated, a time when the information was sent to a hospital, an identification number associated with the transmission to the hospital, and patient information. The transporting unit is identified, the approximate arrival time at the hospital is indicated, the category of the patient (i.e., Alpha—which can be the equivalent of a Pool A classification for the patient), information concerning the vital signs of the patient, the physical condition of the patient, the cause of the patient's medical problems (i.e., “MVA” as an abbreviation for motor vehicle accident), a bay assignment (e.g., an assignment of an emergency room suite), a call back number for an emergency response professional with the patient, and information concerning other patients that the emergency room can expect from an incident giving rise to the patient's medical problems (i.e., in this case a motor vehicle accident)].
Regarding claim 12, Levin discloses wherein in the step of determining the display order, the display order of the pieces of patient information is determined such that predetermined patient information pinned by the user is displayed earlier than patient information other than the predetermined patient information, and a display order of the patient information other than predetermined patient information is determined based on the first information and the second information [see para. 0023, 0028 and figure 3; E-triage uses routine information collected at triage to distribute adult patients across a customizable scale based on risk of pre-defined EMR collected outcomes. Ensemble learning is used to create random forest decision tree models for each outcome, per population. Thus, separate models are derived for each outcome from the same predictor data, but are applied in tandem to produce probabilities that map to e-triage levels and it can also transform the triage level data for a number of patients waiting in the ED into a visual representation of patients and priority, for example as a heatmap of patients waiting for care; which corresponds to allow a user to pin or selected information items for priority display].
Regarding claim 13, Levin discloses a patient information processing method executed by one or more processors, the method comprising: [see para. 0014; a computing device selected from a group of a personal computer, laptop, smartphone, tablet, server, and cloud based computing device]:
obtaining a plurality of pieces of patient information each of which is associated with respective one of a plurality of patients [see para. 0013-0014; Gathering data related to the potential patients includes gathering any of a group of demographics (age and gender), vital signs (temperature, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation), complaint(s), medical/surgical history, chronic conditions, and mode of arrival which corresponds to retrieving multiple pieces of patient information vitals, risk factors];
and determining a plurality of pieces of first patient information to be displayed on a patient information list screen by filtering the plurality of pieces of patient information based on a predetermined filtering condition [see para. 0014; A patient's needs in the ED at triage are predicted using data selected from a group of (1) in-hospital (including ED) mortality, (2) intensive care unit admission, (3) emergent surgical procedure including catheterization, and (4) inpatient hospitalization, (5) other acute clinical outcomes available in electronic medical record. The system includes a display. The display can show a specific patient score as well as a heatmap of patient scores for the ED; which corresponds to ordering of patients by triage level and scores used to rank patients in the list and sorting patients information] and second information different from the first information, wherein the determining the display order includes determining the display order of the pieces of patient information based on the first information such that the pieces of patient information to be displayed on the patient information list screen are displayed early according to a value of the first information [see para. 0023, 0028 and figures 1, 3; Data entered into Epic at triage will be automatically communicated to the E-triage application. These fields and layout mimic the currently existing triage interface. It's important to note the 3 questions below the “Electronic Triage Level Recommendation” highlight requirements to maintain some nurse judgment by including an override feature. The frequency, type (i.e., under-triage or over-triage) and reasons for override will be collected by the application and explicitly analyzed to improve E-triage iteratively. However, it can also transform the triage level data for a number of patients waiting in the ED into a visual representation of patients and priority, for example as a heatmap of patients waiting for care; which corresponds to high priority patients are displayed at the top patients list according to the value of the first information]; however, Levin fails to explicitly teach determining a display order of the plurality of pieces of first patient information to be displayed on the patient information list screen based on information different from the predetermined filtering condition.
Rickard discloses determining a display order of the plurality of pieces of first patient information to be displayed on the patient information list screen based on information different from the predetermined filtering condition [see para. 0016; a particular hospital might have 36 patient suites in an emergency room and can manually or dynamically allocate a first subset of the suites (e.g., 8 patient suites) to Pool A patients, a second subset of the suites (e.g., 14 patient suites) to Pool B patients, and a third subset of the suites (e.g., 14 patient suites) to Pool C patients. A human administrator of the hospital and/or a supervisory information device can reallocate emergency room suites to different categories based upon patient needs and/or available medical resources on a given day at a given time].
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Levin and Rickard before the affective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, system that collect and display patient information of Levin to include system that display patient related and perform multi-attribute ordering, as taught by Rickard. One would have been obvious and predictable improvement results that enhances clarity, usability and clinical workflow efficiency and display patient related data.
Regarding claim 14, Levin discloses further comprising: a step of displaying the patient information list screen on which the plurality of pieces of first patient information are displayed in the determined display order [see para. 0021; patients based upon clinical information routinely collected at triage which include basic demographics (age and gender), vital signs (temperature, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation), complaint(s), medical/surgical history, chronic conditions, and mode of arrival].
Regarding claim 15, Rickard discloses wherein the predetermined filtering condition is information related to an attribute of a user or the patient [see para. 0024; the transporting unit is identified, the approximate arrival time at the hospital is indicated, the category of the patient (i.e., Alpha—which can be the equivalent of a Pool A classification for the patient), information concerning the vital signs of the patient, the physical condition of the patient, the cause of the patient's medical problems (i.e., “MVA” as an abbreviation for motor vehicle accident), a bay assignment (e.g., an assignment of an emergency room suite), a call back number for an emergency response professional with the patient, and information concerning other patients that the emergency room can expect from an incident giving rise to the patient's medical problems (i.e., in this case a motor vehicle accident).]
Regarding claim 16, Levin discloses a computer readable medium that stores a program that causes a computer to execute the patient information processing [see para. 0014; a computing device selected from a group of a personal computer, laptop, smartphone, tablet, server, and cloud based computing device].
Regarding claims 17-20 are an independent claims and related to a patient information processing device comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories configured to store a computer readable instruction, wherein when the computer readable instruction is executed by the one or more processors. Since the features of claims 18-20 are substantially the same as those of claims 1 and 13 except for the category of invention, the same reasoning as in claims 1 and 13 applies to claims 18-20.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levin et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0242973) in view of Rickard (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0228502) and further in view of Ahmed et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0290060).
Levin and Rickard do not teach wherein the second information is information indicating whether a specific medical device is connected to each patient, and the step of determining the display order includes a step of determining the display order of the patient information of the patients having the same value of the first information based on the information indicating whether the specific medical device is connected to each patient.
Ahmed discloses wherein the second information is information indicating whether a specific medical device is connected to each patient, and the step of determining the display order includes a step of determining the display order of the patient information of the patients having the same value of the first information based on the information indicating whether the specific medical device is connected to each patient see para. 0028-0033 and figures 2F-5; a method of treating a contagious respiratory infection using a wearable sensor can include providing a remote monitoring kit to a patient, said wearable sensor assembly configured to measure blood oxygen saturation of the patient over a monitoring period. The method can further include providing, to the patient, a first software application that is configured to be installed on a patient user computing device, said wearable sensor assembly configured to wirelessly connect with the patient user computing device which corresponds to a specific medical device is connected to each patient].
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Levin, Rickard and Ahmed before the affective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, system that collect and display patient information of Levin and system that display patient related and perform multi-attribute ordering of Rickard to include medical monitoring device, as taught by Ahmed. One would have been obvious and predictable improvement results that enhances clarity, usability and clinical workflow efficiency and display patient related data.
Regarding claim 9; Ahmed discloses wherein the specific medical device is an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) [see para. 0130; monitoring patient’s oxygen content].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Weber (US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0065422) discloses a system provides an improved clinician workflow by providing a composite display image supporting documenting clinical actions, reviewing previous actions and other clinical information and automatically indicating impact of changed clinician data on worker task lists. A user interface system for processing and displaying patient medical information includes at least one repository of information including clinical observation data comprising clinical observations of a particular patient and healthcare worker task data indicating tasks for performance by a healthcare worker.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAO H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4053. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached on 571-272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CAO H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171