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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 3/3/2026 has been entered. Claim 21 has been added. Claim 7 has been cancelled. Claims 1-6, and 8-21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 101 rejection previously set forth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
The Office equates, at page 14 of the Office action with regard to original claim 5 which featured the claimed clinical decision support GUI, this communication thread to the claimed clinical decision support GUI. Whether or not the communication thread of Hame includes suggested care measures, the communication thread as taught by Hame fails to disclose a GUI with a first tab and a second tab. Further, the communication thread of Hame, whether being the full communication thread or a portion of the communication thread that is displayed, fails to teach that when a first tab is selected, one or more suggested activities are displayed and when a second tab is selected, one or more accepted activities are displayed.
…
Further, Applicant has considered U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0157799 (Ketterer et al., hereinafter Ketterer), which is cited by the Office as also including a clinical decision support GUI. Ketterer teaches a care plan management system configured to generate recommended treatments and a care plan GUI that includes a recommendation section "that includes a treatment plan template having recommended treatments for the problem conditions 315. The first healthcare provider 111 can access the recommendation section 305 using a recommendation link 310. The recommendation section 305 can include a recommendation of one or more goals, instructions, follow-up information, observation items, or orderable items such as lab tests, etc." (see paragraph [0053] of Ketterer). Recommendations can be added to the care plan by the healthcare provider; however, this "care plan" of Ketterer is not included within a second tab of the clinical decision support GUI as claimed. Rather, added items are listed in a plan items section (210) of the main care plan GUI 200, not the recommendation section 305. Therefore, Ketterer fails to cure the deficiencies of Hame.
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. As outlined below, Häme discloses tabs at least in Fig. 6, including a tab for suggested activities, and a tab for corresponding medical activities associated with the patient.
Applicant argues that:
In rejection of claim 11, the Office asserts that Hame teaches all claimed elements of claim 11. Applicant has herein amended claim 11 to require display of a clinical support GUI that displays one or more activity items, wherein the one or more activity items are displayed in an unexpanded state, wherein a title of the activity items is displayed without further description and in response to selection of an expansion button for an activity item, the clinical decision support GUI displays a trigger list including one or more triggers from the retrieved data that were met to trigger display of that activity item.
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. As outlined below, Häme discloses alert indicators which can be selected to see expanded information about the alert, including the threshold associated with triggering the alert (Häme, Fig. 4 with ¶0081-¶0085).
Applicant argues that:
As the Office admits at pages 14-15 of the Office action, Hame fails to teach a clinical decision support GUI that includes selectable elements (e.g., an accept element or a cancel element) that trigger inclusion of a corresponding activity to a care plan. The Office asserts that Ketterer teaches "add" buttons as shown in the recommendation section of Ketterer whereby recommendations can be added to a care plan. However, Ketterer fails to disclose a clinical decision support GUI that includes a care plan tab that includes, for an expanded accepted activity, at least two of a description of reasoning for the accepted activity, a date of acceptance, guideline class, a level of the accepted activity, and one or more triggers met for recommendation of the accepted activity as claimed. For this reason, Ketterer fails to cure the deficiencies of Hame.
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. Ketterer discloses at least an add button, rationale, and modification dates at Figs. 3 and 10 with ¶0028, ¶0037, ¶0054-¶0056, ¶0085, as outlined below. As discussed above, Häme discloses tabs at least in Fig. 6, including a tab for suggested activities, and a tab for corresponding medical activities associated with the patient.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “display device…” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/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 limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites “the second suggested activity” and should apparently recite “the second activity”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Häme et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0059238), referred to as Häme herein [previously presented].
Kelly et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0278099), referred to as Kelly herein [previously presented].
Ketterer et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20180157799), referred to as Ketterer herein [previously presented].
Parker et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0183508), referred to as Parker herein [previously presented].
Gauthier (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0304882), referred to as Gautheir herein [previously presented].
Koll et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0047375), referred to as Koll herein.
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Häme.
Regarding claim 1, Häme discloses a system, comprising: a display screen; one or more processors; and memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors to: display on the display screen a menu listing one or more electronic medical record (EMRs) of one or more patients (Häme, Fig. 10 with ¶0141-¶0142 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory. Fig. 3 with ¶0039, ¶0076-¶0081 – EMR records database. Dashboard display information includes menus and information from patient EMRs);
display on the display screen a patient timeline graphical user interface (GUI) accessible from the menu, wherein the patient timeline GUI displays, for each patient, patient data as longitudinal medical history event elements, the patient data obtained from the one or more EMRs (Häme, Fig. 4 with ¶0081-¶0085 – medical parameter as a function of time such as blood pressure. “Alert 1” and “Alert 2” are alert event elements displayed on the plot),
wherein each element of the longitudinal medical history event elements is selectable to launch a pop-up window with additional information relating to the selected element (Häme, Fig. 4 with ¶0085 – pop-up display with additional information relating to the alert in response to selection),
wherein the one or more processors are additionally configured to generate one or more activities based on the patient data (Häme, ¶0028 – imaging, assessments, medicine, lab tests, etc.), and
wherein the patient timeline GUI is displayed while the one or more EMRs are in an un-launched state (Häme, ¶0088 – patient timeline is displayed while the communication thread is in an unlaunched state. Fig. 9 with ¶0024, ¶0028-¶0029, ¶0031, ¶0042 – communication thread presents additional EMR data),
wherein the patient timeline GUI includes a decision support element, the decision support element being selectable to launch a clinical decision support GUI (Häme, ¶0085-¶0086 – user can select to launch the full communication thread. Fig. 2 with ¶0024, ¶0056, ¶0067-¶0073 – decision support communication thread),
wherein the clinical decision support GUI comprises a first tab and a second tab, wherein when the first tab is selected, one or more suggested activities of the one or more activities are displayed within the clinical decision support GUI (Häme, Figs. 2 and 6 with ¶0074 – tabs in the header element result in display of the chat support tab or other tabs such as vitals, labs, etc. ¶0028, ¶0041, ¶0047 – suggested imaging, assessments, medicine, lab tests, diagnoses, care pathway adjustment.)and
when the second tab is selected, one or more activities of the one or more activities are displayed within the clinical decision support GUI (Häme, Figs. 2 and 6 with ¶0074 – other activities are displayed in other tabs including medicine dosage and timing, orders, imaging tests, lab tests, etc.).
Regarding claim 2, Häme discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the patient data is segmented into a plurality of parameters and each of the plurality of parameters is further segmented into a plurality of event types (Häme, Fig. 4 with ¶0045-¶0048, ¶0068 – patient parameter states (blood pressure, glucose, etc.) and conditions (e.g. sepsis)).
Regarding claim 8, Häme discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses the one or more activities comprise one or more of a recommendation for future care, a recommendation for future treatment, a recommendation for future intervention, and a recommendation for future screening (Häme, ¶0028, ¶0041, ¶0047 – suggested imaging, assessments, medicine, lab tests, diagnoses, care pathway adjustment. ¶0132 – predicted future patient states).
Regarding claim 9, Häme discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the one or more activities are assigned from a set of activities based on a plurality of guideline recommendations (Häme, ¶0045-¶0047 – guidelines used to inform care recommendations).
Regarding claim 10, Häme discloses the elements of claim 9 above, and further discloses wherein each of the plurality of guideline recommendations comprises one or more triggers of a plurality of triggers, each activity of the one or more activities associated with a rule set including one or more of the plurality of triggers (Häme, Fig. 4 with ¶0024, ¶0049, ¶0072 – vital sign threshold or movement is used to trigger guidelines or suggested actions to be presented. ¶0053 – rule-based responses. ¶0045-¶0046 – guidelines can be used to inform suggested actions).
Regarding claim 11, Häme discloses a method for a longitudinal cardiology timeline and clinical decision support system, comprising: displaying a menu listing one or more options for retrieving data of one or more patients from a plurality of data repositories of a hospital (Häme, Fig. 10 with ¶0141-¶0142 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory. Fig. 3 with ¶0039, ¶0076-¶0081 – EMR records database. Dashboard display information includes menus and information from patient EMRs. Figs. 2 with 4 with ¶0081-¶0085 – medical parameter as a function of time such as blood pressure or heart rate. ¶0035 - hospital),
the plurality of data repositories including one or more electronic medical record (EMR) systems (Häme, Fig. 3 with ¶0039, ¶0076-¶0081 – EMR records database. Dashboard display information includes menus and information from patient EMRs);
displaying a patient timeline graphical user interface (GUI) that displays, for each patient, a plurality of elements indicating a plurality of history events determined from the retrieved data from the one or more EMR systems, the plurality of elements being arranged chronologically (Häme, Fig. 4 with ¶0081-¶0085 – medical parameter as a function of time such as blood pressure. “Alert 1” and “Alert 2” are alert events element displayed on the plot);
and in response to selection of an element of the plurality of elements, modifying the patient timeline GUI to display a clinical decision support GUI that displays one or more activity items (Häme, Fig. 4 with ¶0085 – pop-up display with additional information relating to the alert in response to selection. Fig. 9 with ¶0024, ¶0028-¶0029, ¶0031, ¶0042 – communication thread presents additional EMR data. ¶0028, ¶0041, ¶0047 – suggested imaging, assessments, medicine, lab tests, diagnoses, care pathway adjustment. ¶0132 – predicted future patient states),
wherein the patient timeline GUI is displayed while the one or more EMR systems are in an un-launched state (Häme, ¶0088 – patient timeline is displayed while the communication thread is in an unlaunched state),
wherein the one or more activity items are displayed in an unexpanded state wherein, for each of the one or more activity items, the clinical decision support GUI displays a title of a corresponding activity item without further description and an expansion button (Häme, Fig. 4 with ¶0081-¶0085 – “Alert 1” and “Alert 2” are alert events element displayed on the plot. The alerts are selectable to see details); and
in response to selection of the expansion button for a first activity item, the clinical decision support GUI displays a trigger list including one or more triggers for the retrieved data for a corresponding patient that were met to trigger display of the first activity item (Häme, Fig. 4 with ¶0084-¶0085 – pop-up display with additional information relating to the alert in response to selection. In the additional information, the trigger “systolic BP is less than 100 mmHg” and “Glasgow coma scale is less than 15” are the corresponding triggers, Fig. 4 with ¶0024, ¶0049, ¶0072 – vital sign threshold or movement is used to trigger guidelines or suggested actions to be presented. See also ¶0073 – selection of the guidelines results in full display of the guidelines).
Regarding claim 12, Häme discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the one or more activity items are identified based on a set of rules applied to the retrieved data, the set of rules identifying one or more rule sets to be met in order to identify the one or more activity items, wherein each of the one or more rule sets includes one or more trigger combinations (Häme, Fig. 4 with ¶0024, ¶0049, ¶0072 – vital sign threshold or movement is used to trigger guidelines or suggested actions to be presented. ¶0053 – rule-based responses. ¶0045-¶0046 – guidelines can be used to inform suggested actions).
Regarding claim 13, Häme discloses the elements of claim 12 above, and further discloses wherein the set of rules are based on a set of known clinical guidelines stored in memory of a computing device (Häme, Fig. 4 with ¶0024, ¶0049, ¶0072 – vital sign threshold or movement is used to trigger guidelines or suggested actions to be presented. ¶0053 – rule-based responses. ¶0045-¶0046 – guidelines can be used to inform suggested actions. ¶0066 - memory).
Regarding claim 14, Häme discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the one or more activity items comprise recommendations for future care for each patient (Häme, ¶0028, ¶0041, ¶0047 – suggested imaging, assessments, medicine, lab tests, diagnoses, care pathway adjustment. ¶0132 – predicted future patient states).
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Häme in view of Kelly.
Regarding claim 3, Häme discloses the elements of claim 2 above, and further disclose wherein each of the plurality of event types are displayed in separate
However, Häme appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kelly discloses physiological waveform and event plots (Kelly, Abstract), including
separate time aligned panels (Kelly, Fig. 6 with ¶0028-¶0029, ¶0034 – time aligned panels showing physiologic data in waveforms. See also Figs. 10-11 with ¶0038-¶0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the panels of Häme to include aligning the panels along a single time axis based on the teachings of Kelly. The motivation for doing so would have been reduce screen real-estate required to present multiple plots of physiological data as well as facilitating comparison at a specific event time (Kelly, ¶0031).
Regarding claim 4, Häme as modified discloses the elements of claim 3 above, and further discloses wherein the event icon is one of the longitudinal medical history event elements and is selectable to launch the pop-up window with additional information relating to a corresponding event, the additional information including a date of the corresponding event, a category of the corresponding event, and/or a result of the corresponding event (Häme, Fig. 4 with ¶0085 – pop-up display with additional information relating to the alert in response to selection. The time corresponding to the event is shown within the communication thread. The category (e.g., systolic BP or Glasgow coma scale, or deterioration in vitas) is displayed. The result (e.g., suspected Sepsis) is displayed. Fig. 6 with ¶0093-¶0095 – time/date of values. See also Kelly Fig. 12 with ¶0041 – event summary includes date, value, and annotation).
Claim(s) 5 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Häme in view of Ketterer.
Regarding claim 5, Häme discloses the elements of claim 1 above. However, Häme appears not to expressly disclose wherein the clinical decision support GUI is displayed as a side panel of the patient timeline GUI.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ketterer discloses a care plan management system (Ketterer, Abstract), including
wherein the clinical decision support GUI is displayed as a side panel of the patient timeline GUI (Ketterer, Fig. 3 with ¶0053-¶0055, ¶0058 – recommendation section is displayed in a side panel and includes system recommendations for changes to the care plan for the patient).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the display of Häme to include a recommendation sidebar based on the teachings of Ketterer. The motivation for doing so would have been to continue to provide an unobstructed view and access to the dashboard while maintaining an organized and easily discoverable section in which prioritized information is aggregated, facilitating ease of use and access of medical history and recommendations (Ketterer, ¶0001).
Regarding claim 15, Häme discloses the elements of claim 11 above. However, Häme appears not to expressly disclose wherein the clinical decision support GUI comprises a plurality of selectable elements that, when selected, trigger inclusion or exclusion of a corresponding activity to a care plan, the care plan comprising a list of all included activities for a specified patient.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ketterer discloses a care plan management system (Ketterer, Abstract), including
the clinical decision support GUI comprises a plurality of selectable elements that, when selected, trigger inclusion or exclusion of a corresponding activity to a care plan, the care plan comprising a list of all included activities for a specified patient (Ketterer, Fig. 3 with ¶0054-¶0056 – “add” buttons shown in the recommendation section for adding items to the care plan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the display of Häme to include selectable recommendations based on the teachings of Ketterer. The motivation for doing so would have been to continue to facilitating ease of use and access for making changes to medical history based on recommendations (Ketterer, ¶0001), preventing the user from having to manually incorporate recommendations.
Regarding claim 16, Häme discloses a longitudinal cardiology patient history timeline system, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors to (Häme, Fig. 10 with ¶0141-¶0142 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory. Fig. 3 with ¶0039, ¶0076-¶0081 – EMR records database. Dashboard display information includes menus and information from patient EMRs. Figs. 2 with 4 with ¶0081-¶0085 – medical parameter as a function of time such as blood pressure or heart rate):
output, for display on a display device, a patient timeline graphical user interface (GUI) that includes, for a patient, a plurality of panels indicating patient history events (Häme, Fig. 3 with ¶0039, ¶0076-¶0081 – EMR records database. Dashboard display information includes menus and information from patient EMRs. Fig. 4 with ¶0081-¶0085 – medical parameter as a function of time such as blood pressure, glucose level, scores, current care givers, and test results. ¶0026 – monitor. This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the hardware monitor described in Applicant’s Specification ¶0033),
where each panel is generated by applying a set of rules to a set of patient data obtained from an electronic medical record database (Häme, Fig. 4 with ¶0024, ¶0049, ¶0072 – vital sign threshold or movement is used to trigger guidelines or suggested actions to be presented. ¶0053 – rule-based responses. ¶0045-¶0046 – guidelines can be used to inform suggested actions. ¶0039 – EMR records database); and
display, within a modification of the patient timeline GUI, an activity recommendation indicating a suggested care measure based on the patient data (Häme, Fig. 4 with ¶0085 – pop-up display with additional information relating to the alert in response to selection. ¶0028 – recommended imaging, assessments, medicine, lab tests, etc.),
wherein the modification is a clinical decision support GUI comprising a
wherein the activity recommendation is displayed within the clinical decision support GUI when the
However, Häme appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ketterer discloses a care plan management system (Ketterer, Abstract), including
wherein the modification is a clinical decision support GUI comprising a pending tab (Ketterer, Fig. 3 with ¶0053-¶0055, ¶0058 – recommendation section is displayed in a side panel and includes system recommendations for changes to the care plan for the patient)
the clinical decision support GUI displays one or more accepted activities each comprising, wherein the care plan tab, when a first accepted activity of the one or more accepted activities is selected, displays at least two of a description of reasoning for the first accepted activity, a date of acceptance, a guideline class, a level of the first accepted activity, and one or more triggers met for recommendation of the first accepted activity (Ketterer, Figs. 3 and 10 with ¶0054-¶0056, ¶0085 – “add” buttons shown in the recommendation section for adding items to the care plan. ¶0037 – care plan item details include underlying problem (reasoning for the item, (see also Fig. 14 – Evidence Link Tooltip and Fig. 16 – “Narrative”)) and goals including maintaining a particular level or threshold of specific parameter such as blood pressure. ¶0028 – date and time the change is recorded in the plan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the display of Häme as modified to include selectable recommendations to modify the care plan, and corresponding details, based on the teachings of Ketterer. The motivation for doing so would have been to continue to facilitating ease of use and access for making changes to medical history based on recommendations (Ketterer, ¶0001), preventing the user from having to manually incorporate recommendations.
Regarding claim 17, Häme as modified discloses the elements of claim 16 above, and further discloses wherein the instructions are executable to display, on the patient timeline GUI, one or more event icons, each of the one or more event icons being selectable to launch a pop-up window displaying additional information relating to an event represented by a selected event icon (Häme, Fig. 4 with ¶0085 – pop-up display with additional information relating to the alert in response to selection).
Regarding claim 18, Häme discloses the elements of claim 16 above, and further discloses wherein the clinical decision support GUI, when launched, being displayed as a
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the display of Häme to include a recommendations as a sidebar based on the teachings of Ketterer. The motivation for doing so would have been to continue to provide an unobstructed view and access to the dashboard while maintaining an organized and easily discoverable section in which prioritized information is aggregated, facilitating ease of use and access of medical history and recommendations (Ketterer, ¶0001).
Regarding claim 19, Häme as modified discloses the elements of claim 18 above, and further discloses wherein the clinical decision support GUI displays the activity recommendation and one or more selectable elements, the activity recommendation being added to a care plan via user selection of one of the one or more selectable elements (Ketterer, Fig. 3 with ¶0054-¶0056 – “add” buttons shown in the recommendation section for adding items to the care plan).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Häme in view of Ketterer in further view of Parker.
Regarding claim 6, Häme discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the clinical decision support GUI when the first tab is selected comprises a plurality of selectable elements, including an
However, Häme appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ketterer discloses a care plan management system (Ketterer, Abstract), including
wherein the clinical decision support GUI when the first tab is selected comprises a plurality of selectable elements, including an accept element for each of one or more suggested activities displayed in an expanded state, wherein the accept element, when selected for a first suggested activity, triggers inclusion of the first suggested activity to a care plan and the cancel element, wherein, when the second tab is selected, the one or more accepted activities displayed within the clinical decision support GUI include activities included in the care plan (Ketterer, Fig. 3 with ¶0053-¶0055, ¶0058 – recommendation section is displayed in a side panel and includes system recommendations for changes to the care plan for the patient. Figs. 3 and 10 with ¶0054-¶0056, ¶0085 – “add” buttons shown in the recommendation section for adding items to the care plan. Figs. 3, 10, and 13 – recommendations are shown in a collapsible list (see the right and down arrows. “Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2” is expanded in Fig. 13 and collapsed in Fig. 10)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the display of Häme as modified to include selectable recommendations to modify the care plan, and corresponding details, based on the teachings of Ketterer. The motivation for doing so would have been to continue to facilitating ease of use and access for making changes to medical history based on recommendations (Ketterer, ¶0001), preventing the user from having to manually incorporate recommendations.
However, Häme as modified appears not to expressly disclose including the cancel element, when selected for a second activity, triggers exclusion of the second activity from the care plan. However, in the same field of endeavor, Parker discloses providing medical recommendations based on physiological data (Parker, Abstract), including
including the cancel element, when selected for a second activity, triggers exclusion of the second activity from the care plan (Parker, Fig. 13 with ¶0183-¶0185 – rejection selection at the interface to reject a recommendation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the recommendations of Häme as modified to include a recommendation rejection input based on the teachings of Parker. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the system to respond with a modified recommendation in response to feedback, improving the recommendation (Parker, ¶0131-¶0132).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Häme in view of Ketterer in further view of Gauthier.
Regarding claim 20, Häme as modified discloses the elements of claim 18 above, and further discloses wherein the clinical decision support GUI includes an add activity element that when selected launches an add activity pop-up window, the add activity pop-up window displaying,
However, Häme as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Gauthier discloses a patient care interface for managing clinical processes (Gauthier, Abstract), including
displaying, via user input to one or more drop-down menus, a subset of available activity recommendations (Gauthier, Figs. 14-15 with ¶0082-¶0083 – drop-down menu customized with recommended option for medication as well as alternative options for the selected medication. Other medication recommendations are not presented based on the selection of the medication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the panels of Häme to include a drop-down menu of recommendations based on a selected recommended activity based on the teachings of Gauthier. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the system to continue to provide guidance and options for details of implementing a suggested activity, allowing users to more easily find implementation details and avoid entry errors (Gauthier, ¶0025-¶0026).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Häme in view of Ketterer in further view of Parker in further view of Koll.
Regarding claim 21, Häme as modified discloses the elements of claim 6 above. However, Häme as modified appears not to expressly disclose wherein the accept element, when selected for a first suggested activity, triggers display of the accept element and the cancel element for the second suggested activity (Ketterer, ¶0058-¶0060 – recommended items are kept up-to-date with the current patient information).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Goyal discloses generating medical recommendations (Koll, Abstract), including
wherein accepting a first suggested activity, triggers display of a second suggested activity (Koll, ¶0087-¶0092 – recommended actions are based on previous accepted actions. See also ¶0082-¶0083 – suggestion to select between mutually exclusive actions to adjust the medical record. “Logical next step” suggestions can depend on the medical record adjustment. See also ¶0084-¶0086 – adding suggestions to complete the information needed to enable the step of adding a medication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the recommendations of Häme as modified to include adjusting recommendations based on previous inputs based on the teachings of Koll. The motivation for doing so would have been to resolve conflicting inputs within patient files, and adjust recommendations in response to changing patient information (Koll, ¶0012-¶0015), as well as to improve the quality of suggestions for individual users (Koll, ¶0087, ¶0092).
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 DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time.
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174