DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment submitted October 14, 2025. Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 6, 13, 17 – 18, and 20 are amended. Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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 .
Drawings
The rejection to the drawings are withdrawn based upon the amendment submitted October 14, 2025.
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 – 20 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 One
Claims 1 – 20 are drawn to a method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One
Independent claims 1, 17, and 20 recite a method for facilitating medical care of patients, the method comprising: obtaining one or more patient health datasets related to a plurality of patients; processing the one or more patient health datasets to generate a plurality of patient profiles, each patient profile of the plurality or patient profiles being associated with a respective patient of the plurality of patients; determining an urgency score for each of the plurality of patients based on patient medical events and provider contact points identified from the one or more patient health data; and a patient map, wherein the patient map includes graphical representations of patient profiles of the plurality of patient profiles; obtaining updated one or more updated patient health datasets related to a first patient of the plurality of patients; analyzing the one or more updated patient health datasets to determine whether the first patient has experienced one or more of an admission, discharge, or transfer medical event; when the first patient has experienced an admission, discharge and/or transfer medical event.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, as reflected in the specification, which states that present invention relates to “new systems and interfaces [that] are provided to physicians and other health care workers to permit a proactive, patient-centric view of a patient group under care.” (paragraph 4 of the published specification). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they allow “medical
professionals to more effectively prioritize patients for care, better track patient care and needs and better track patient outcomes across a healthcare system” (paragraph 4 of the published specification). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).”
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including:
Claim 1: “computer hardware processor”, “electronic”, “populating a respective data structure for each patient profile with the urgency score determined for the associated patient”, “generating an interactive graphical user interface (GUI) to assist in prioritizing patients for clinician attention”, “interactive GUI”, “generating an updated interactive GUI, wherein a position and one or more characteristics of the graphical representation associated with the first patient are updated within the patient map of the updated interactive GUI to indicate the first patient has an increased urgency for medical attention”, “displaying the updated interactive GUI”
Claims 2, 4, 6, 13: “GUI”
Claim 17: “System”, “computer hardware processor”, “display”, “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one computer hardware processor, cause the at least one computer hardware processor to perform a method”, “electronic”,, “populating a respective data structure for each patient profile with the urgency score determined for the associated patient”, “generating an interactive graphical user interface (GUI) to assist in prioritizing patients for clinician attention”, “interactive GUI”, “generating an updated interactive GUI, wherein a position and one or more characteristics of the graphical representation associated with the first patient are updated within the patient map of the updated interactive GUI to indicate the first patient has an increased urgency for medical attention”, “displaying the updated interactive GUI”
Claims 18 – 19: “System”
Claim 20: “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one computer hardware processor, cause the at least one computer hardware processor to perform a method”, “electronic”, “generating an updated interactive GUI, wherein a position and one or more characteristics of the graphical representation associated with the first patient are updated within the patient map of the updated interactive GUI to indicate the first patient has an increased urgency for medical attention”, “displaying the updated interactive GUI”
These features are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The published specification supports this conclusion as follows:
[0195] The technology described herein is operational with numerous other general purpose or special purpose computing system environments or configurations. Examples of well-known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for use with the technology described herein include, but are not limited to, personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, distributed computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like.
[0205] The above-described embodiments of the technology described herein can be implemented in any of numerous ways. For example, the embodiments may be implemented using hardware, software, or a combination thereof. When implemented in software, the software code can be executed on any suitable processor or collection of processors, whether provided in a single computer or distributed among multiple computers. Such processors may be implemented as integrated circuits, with one or more processors in an integrated circuit component, including commercially available integrated circuit components known in the art by names such as CPU chips, GPU chips, microprocessor, microcontroller, or co-processor. Alternatively, a processor may be implemented in custom circuitry, such as an ASIC, or semicustom circuitry resulting from configuring a programmable logic device. As yet a further alternative, a processor may be a portion of a larger circuit or semiconductor device, whether commercially available, semi-custom or custom. As a specific example, some commercially available microprocessors have multiple cores such that one or a subset of those cores may constitute a processor. However, a processor may be implemented using circuitry in any suitable format.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2 – 16 and 18 – 19 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of Claim(s) 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Finn et al. (U.S. Publication Number 2009/0265185 A1) are withdrawn based upon the amendment submitted October 14, 2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn et al., herein after Finn (U.S. Publication Number 2009/0265185 A1) in view of Vasudevan et al., herein after Vasudevan (U.S. Publication Number 2021/0375437 A1).
Claim 1 (Currently Amended). Finn teaches a method for facilitating medical care of patients (paragraph 9 discloses a computerized method for managing the presentation of categorized patient specific information), the method comprising:
using at least one computer hardware processor (paragraph 39 discloses multiprocessor systems) to perform:
obtaining one or more electronic patient health datasets related to a plurality of patients (paragraph 12 discloses retrieving one or more sets of patient specific data for patients/a population; paragraph 36 discloses coordination and management of health service delivery for a given patient population);
processing the one or more electronic patient health datasets to generate a plurality of patient profiles, each patient profile of the plurality or patient profiles being associated with a respective patient of the plurality of patients (paragraph 8 discloses a display module for presenting to a particular user the content as patient-specific categorized information, displaying patient centric/specific (respective) categorized file (patient profiles) information; paragraph 54 discloses the FACESHEET tab, which when selected causes an overview of medical conditions and other care related information for the patient to be presented), the processing comprising:
determining an urgency score for each of the plurality of patients based on patient medical events (paragraph 111 discloses a clinician may, for example, consider a first patient with a higher urgency score more of a priority to receive care in certain situations than a second patient with a lower urgency score but with a similar overall priority designation or ranking based on the summation of both the importance factor and urgency factor) and provider contact points identified from the one or more electronic patient health datasets (Figure 4; paragraph 49 discloses Electronic health records associated with each patient encountering a healthcare provider or system. which contain various types of data about an individual patient, such as: patient identifying and demographic information; insurance and financial information; patient health status, current immunizations, food and drug allergies, diagnoses and current assessments of various clinicians; and care documentation including a listing of clinicians that are currently providing or that have provided care to the patient); and
populating a respective data structure for each patient profile with the urgency score determined for the associated patient (paragraph 66 discloses the ordering of the patients in the chart (Figure 19) from the top, left comer moving down to the bottom, right corner represents a ranking of the patients in terms of the need to receive healthcare services, as determined by the prioritization module. Particular ranking values for the patients within the ordered chart may also be represented by color variations or other visual indicators applied to the chart, enabling the care coordinator to quickly determine which patients are designated as more in need of care as compared to other patients of the patient population);
generating an interactive graphical user interface (GUI) to assist in prioritizing patients for clinician attention (paragraph 11 discloses a user interface for managing the presentation of patient-specific information that is accessible by a number of users. The user interface includes one or more display regions configured for presenting the patient-specific information in categorized form based on preferences designated by a particular user of the number of users), the GUI having:
a patient map, wherein the patient map includes graphical representations of patient profiles of the plurality of patient profiles (Figure 21; paragraph 12 discloses a user interface includes one or more display regions configured for presenting a graphical plot (patient map) of ranking values for the number of patients. The graphical plot has a set of regions, with each region denoting a unique range of ranking values for the number of patients and being provided with a distinctive visual indicator to distinguish one region from another region displaying graphical plot (patient map) visualizing patient group/population data representative of the profiles; paragraph 110 discloses a graphical plotting of the [importance urgency] points for various patients against the Importance axis and the Urgency axis), and wherein the patient map includes, for each graphical representation, an indication of predicted urgency for medical attention for the patient associated with the graphical representation based on the urgency score (displaying a representative indication of urgency of patient needed care/address).
Finn fails to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Vasudevan as cited:
displaying the interactive GUI (paragraph 149 discloses the user interface provides healthcare practitioners with a graphical display identifying the transition of care decision intervention priority scores, priority score data, and/or patient priority categories; paragraph 150 discloses the highest priority patient count indicator may include an interactive element, which when selected in the user interface will provide the healthcare practitioner with the list of patients determined to be in the highest priority category based on their transition of care decision intervention priority score or transition of care decision intervention priority score data); and
obtaining updated one or more updated electronic patient health datasets related to a first patient of the plurality of patients (paragraph 82 discloses the patient data may include data from inpatient or outpatient real-time monitoring devices capable of sending information related to the transition of care decision intervention back to the inpatient or outpatient real-time monitoring devices or healthcare practitioners, providers, and clinicians monitoring patients who are wearing or using such monitoring devices and/or to the patients wearing or using such monitoring devices, indicating updated electronic patient health data related to a patient):
analyzing the one or more updated electronic patient health datasets to determine whether the first patient has experienced one or more of an admission, discharge, or transfer medical event (paragraph 129 discloses the received patient data may include one or more data elements or features that correspond to a specific clinical parameter or measurement obtained in a healthcare setting that may be useful in determining a particular type of patient's transition of care decision intervention priority score; paragraph 145 discloses the execution server displays a report indicating the percentage of patients historically discharged to home care from a particular health care facility or health care system (based on patient data), as compared to the percentage of patients currently recommended for home care discharge from the same health care facility or health care system);
when the first patient has experienced an admission, discharge and/or transfer medical event, generating an updated interactive GUI, wherein a position and one or more characteristics of the graphical representation associated with the first patient are updated within the patient map of the updated interactive GUI to indicate the first patient has an increased urgency for medical attention (paragraph 145 discloses displaying a report indicating the percentage of patients historically discharged to home care from a particular health care facility or health care system (based on patient data), as compared to the percentage of patients currently recommended for home care discharge from the same health care facility or health care system may allow healthcare practitioners to evaluate the impact of the transition of care decision intervention systems); and
displaying the updated interactive GUI (paragraph 150 discloses the highest priority patient count indicator may include an interactive element, which when selected in the user interface will provide the healthcare practitioner with the list of patients determined to be in the highest priority category based on their transition of care decision intervention priority score or transition of care decision intervention priority score data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand the method of Finn to further include systems and methods for discharge evaluation triage for the transition of care decision intervention using machine learning as disclosed by Vasudevan.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to expand the method of Finn in this way to provide well-informed, high quality and cost effective decisions around a patient's optimal health care services, care providers, and/or site of care ( e.g., post-acute care) that is focused on transitioning the right patient to the right health care service, care provider and/or care site or facility (Vasudevan: paragraph 1).
System and storage claims 17 and 20 repeat the subject matter of claim 1. As the underlying processes of claims 17 and 20 have been shown to be fully disclosed by the teachings of Finn and Vasudevan in the above rejections of claim 1; as such, these limitations (17 and 20) are rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 1 and incorporated herein.
Claim 2 (Currently Amended). Finn and Vasudevan teach the method according to claim 1. Finn teaches a method wherein the act of displaying the GUI comprises displaying the patient map containing the graphical representations in an order responsive to a last touchpoint with each of the respective patients (paragraph 66 discloses the ordering of the patients in the chart from the top, left comer moving down to the bottom, right corner represents a ranking of the patients in terms of the need to receive healthcare services, as determined by the prioritization module; paragraphs 70 and 73 (Tables 2 – 4) disclose displaying prioritized ranking (order) urgency factors representations related to temporal proximity/distance between a current time and a recent/last clinician encounter activity/access time (last touchpoint)).
System and storage claim 18 repeats the subject matter of claim 2. As the underlying processes of claim 18 have been shown to be fully disclosed by the teachings of Finn and Vasudevan in the above rejections of claim 2; as such, these limitations (claim 18) are rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 2 and incorporated herein.
Claim 3 (Original). Finn and Vasudevan teach the method according to claim 1. Finn teaches a method wherein the patient map is a rectangular map having a vertical axis and a horizontal axis, and wherein the graphical representations are ordered in a direction parallel to the vertical axis based on a severity score of the respective patient profile and the graphical representations are ordered in a direction parallel to the horizontal axis based on a signal indicative of days since last touchpoint of the respective patient profile (Figure 21 discloses a two axes chart plot representation of importance scoring values (severity score) shown on horizontal axis of the profile and the urgency factor as shown on the vertical axis; paragraphs 70 and 73 (Tables 2 – 4) disclose displaying prioritized ranking (order) urgency factors representations related to temporal proximity/distance between a current time and a recent/last clinician encounter activity/access time (last touchpoint)).
System and storage claim 19 repeats the subject matter of claim 3. As the underlying processes of claim 19 have been shown to be fully disclosed by the teachings of Finn and Vasudevan in the above rejections of claim 3; as such, these limitations (claim 19) are rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 3 and incorporated herein.
Claim 4 (Currently Amended). Finn and Vasudevan teach the method of claim 1. Finn teaches a method wherein displaying the GUI further comprises: displaying a patient list, wherein the patient list includes a graphical list representation of one or more patient profiles of the plurality of patient profiles (paragraph 11 discloses a user interface for managing the presentation of patient-specific information that is accessible by a number of users. The user interface includes one or more display regions configured for presenting the patient-specific information in categorized form based on preferences designated by a particular user of the number of users; paragraph 50 discloses displaying ranking results for prioritizing patients to receive care; paragraph displaying a set of ranked/listing patients for graphically indicating/visualizing the profiles; paragraph 111 discloses a clinician may, for example, consider a first patient with a higher urgency score more of a priority to receive care in certain situations than a second patient with a lower urgency score but with a similar overall priority designation or ranking based on the summation of both the importance factor and urgency factor).
Claim 5 (Currently Amended). Finn and Vasudevan teach the method of claim 4. Finn teaches a method wherein the graphical list representations are ordered based on the respective urgency scores of each of the plurality of patient profiles (paragraph 111 discloses a clinician may, for example, consider a first patient with a higher urgency score more of a priority to receive care in certain situations than a second patient with a lower urgency score but with a similar overall priority designation or ranking based on the summation of both the importance factor and urgency factor).
Claim 6 (Currently Amended). Finn and Vasudevan teach the method of claim 4. Finn teaches a method wherein displaying the GUI further comprises: displaying one or more patient map filters (paragraph 9 discloses the user may make modifications to content of the retrieved information set displayed, which are utilized to compile a modified patient specific information set; paragraph 11 discloses a user interface for managing the presentation of patient-specific information that is accessible by a number of users. The user interface includes one or more display regions configured for presenting the patient-specific information in categorized form based on preferences designated by a particular user of the number of users; paragraphs 50 – 52 discloses a menu containing selectable options query options (patient map filters) for managing/updating patient plot prioritization and ranking according to category preferences).
Claim 7 (Original). Finn and Vasudevan teach the method of claim 6. Finn teaches a method wherein the one or more patient map filters include a provider filter and a reason for urgency filter (paragraph 9 discloses the user may make modifications to content of the retrieved information set displayed, which are utilized to compile a modified patient specific information set; paragraphs 50 – 52 discloses clinician menu input/selectable query options (provider filter) and clinician preferences factor (reason) for urgency).
Claim 8 (Original). Finn and Vasudevan teach the method of claim 7. Finn teaches a method further comprising in response to receiving a user input to the provider filter, displaying a graphical representation of each respective patient profile of a subset of patient profiles of the plurality of patient profiles, wherein each patient profile of the subset of patient profiles is associated with a provider input by the user to the provider filter (paragraph 12 discloses based on the patient-specific data retrieved, the need to receive care for each of the number of patients is ranked. The results of the ranking are then displayed in accordance with a visualization scheme on a user interface where patients having a similar ranking are presented proximal to one another and patients having a dissimilar ranking are presented distal to one another).
Claim 9 (Original). Finn and Vasudevan teach the method of claim 4. Finn teaches a method wherein the graphical representation of each patient profile of the plurality of patient profiles has a color, the color being associated with an urgency score of the respective patient profile (paragraph 66 discloses ranking values for the patients within the ordered chart may be represented by color variations or other visual indicators applied to the chart).
Claim 10 (Original). Finn and Vasudevan teach the method of claim 4. Finn teaches a method wherein the graphical representation of each patient profile of the plurality of patient profiles has a size, the size being associated with an urgency score of the respective patient profile (paragraphs 109 and 110 disclose the representation has a zone and distance size/value (size) associated with urgency scoring factors).
Claim 11 (Original). Finn and Vasudevan teach the method of claim 4. Finn teaches a method wherein the graphical representation of each patient profile of the plurality of patient profiles has a shape, the shape being associated with an urgency score of the respective patient profile (paragraph 110 discloses a dividing line (which is interpreted as a shape) denoting a set value on the plot that is less than the 2.0 point separates a first zone of higher priority patients from an adjacent second zone of patients with a lower priority than the first zone. Additional dividing lines and scoring zones may be provided to further segregate patients and visually denote priority to receive care based on the summation of the associated importance factor and urgency factor values,).
Claim 12 (Original). Finn and Vasudevan teach the method of claim 4. Finn teaches a method further comprising, in response to receiving a user selection of a particular graphical representation of a patient profile of the patient map, displaying a patient summary comprising patient demographic information, patient diagnoses, and patient events (paragraphs 12, 49 – 51, and 66 disclose a selectable user interface menu/option for a visualization of patient centric/specific information related to the map that selectively displays additional demographic, diagnoses and health record (event) information).
Claim 13 (Currently Amended). Finn and Vasudevan teach the method of claim 4. Finn teaches a method further comprising, in response to receiving a user selection of a particular graphical representation of a patient profile of the patient map, displaying a detailed patient view on the interactive GUI (paragraph 11 discloses a user interface for managing the presentation of patient-specific information that is accessible by a number of users. The user interface includes one or more display regions configured for presenting the patient-specific information in categorized form based on preferences designated by a particular user of the number of users; paragraphs 12, 49 – 52, 54, and 66 disclose a selectable user interface menu/option for a visualization of patient centric/specific information related to the map that selectively displays an additional patient information (detailed) window).
Claim 14 (Original). Finn and Vasudevan teach the method of claim 13. Finn teaches a method wherein the detailed patient view comprises patient demographic information, patient activity information, patient diagnosis information, a patient summary, and patient medication information (paragraphs 12, 49 – 52, 54, and 66 disclose a demographic, diagnosis, facesheet/overview and medication record information).
Claim 15 (Original). Finn and Vasudevan teach the method of claim 14. Finn teaches a method wherein the detailed patient view comprises a log action input (paragraphs 6, 51, and 58 disclose a log/note information input).
Claim 16 (Original). Finn and Vasudevan teach the method of claim 15. Finn teaches a method further comprising in response to a user input to the log action input, displaying an action menu associated with the respective patient profile (paragraphs 6, 51, and 58 disclose a log/note information input option for displaying an entry menu).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the order they were presented.
Rejections under 35 USC § 101
The Applicant argues the limitations of claim 1 are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner disagrees. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the Applicant’s claims are an abstract idea that falls into the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” which covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner respectfully submits that the PEG (Patent Eligibility Guidelines) of January 2019 recite that “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” include managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The present claims recite the abstract idea of displaying a patient map which includes graphical representations of one or more patient profiles of the plurality of patient profiles. The present claims recite obtaining one or more patient health datasets related to a plurality of patients; processing the one or more patient health datasets to generate a plurality of patient profiles, each patient profile of the plurality or patient profiles being associated with a respective patient of the plurality of patients; and displaying a patient map, wherein the patient map includes graphical representations of one or more patient profiles of the plurality of patient profiles. These features describe interactions with people, thus “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions with people, but for the recitation of generic components, then it is still in the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping.
The Applicant argues the limitations of independent claim 1 integrate any alleged judicial exceptions into a practical application because they represent improvements to the management and display of patient populations health data. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of the present claims fail to integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, the 2019 PEG guidelines recite limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
The present claims fail to demonstrate an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
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 KRISTINE K RAPILLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3325. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.K.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3682 /ROBERT A SOREY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682