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 terminal disclaimer of 12/29/2025 has been considered, and the previous non-statutory double patenting rejections have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 12/29/2025, the following has occurred: claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended; claims 2-10 and 12-19 remain unchanged; and claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 08/24/2017
Response to Arguments
Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejections:
Examiner withdraws these previous rejections in view of the terminal disclaimer received on 12/29/2025.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Step 2A, Prong One:
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite certain methods of organizing activity, nor mathematical concepts. Applicant states that there are computer-controlled operations, which are inherently technological. Examiner however has directed certain computing elements to additional elements.
Applicant also argues with respect to Thales. The claims of Thales recite a unique arrangement of inertial sensors that are used to track the location of a moving item based on a moving reference frame and the unique arrangement not routine and conventional in the art and thus provided a practical application. The present claims however do not recite such an arrangement of sensors in combination with the mathematical elements for the purposes of performing a function.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Applicant cites Ex Parte Desjardins and states that the present claim 1 recites that there are certain claim limitations which improve the functioning of a computer. Applicant eludes to improving how and when database operation occur in a resource-constrained environment. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s parallels with Ex Parte Desjardins as Desjardins is specifically directed to a specific, technical improvement of the functioning of an artificial intelligence model itself with explicit support in the specification. In the instant application, the assertion that the method of the instant application reduces consumption of computer resources compared to other systems that do not perform the method is simply an intended result that may or may not occur. MPEP 2106.05(f) recites: “a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. See Internet Patents Corporation v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (The recitation of maintaining the state of data in an online form without restriction on how the state is maintained and with no description of the mechanism for maintaining the state describes "the effect or result dissociated from any method by which maintaining the state is accomplished" and does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely states that the abstract idea should be applied to achieve a desired result).”
Step 2B:
Applicant states that the claims recite significantly more and also recite BASCOM. The claims of BASCOM recite user-specific web filters that are non-conventionally and non-routinely located at the ISP server rather than a user’s device. The present claims do not recite a non-conventional and non-routine arrangement of elements.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues that the previously-cited references do not teach the “based on the information…” and the “in response to determining…” limitations. Applicant points out that Miller fails to teach that a user is currently experiencing a health event. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. The purpose of Miller is to avoid adverse symptoms or life-threatening events, see: paragraph [0029]. Paragraph [0078] also discusses analyzing physiological measurements for events causing different exertion levels including cardiac events in paragraph [0095]. A heart beat is being measured here for detecting tachycardia using current measurements, and the tachycardia does not necessarily have to stop in order for the detection to occur. Furthermore, current measurements are being collected and compared in FIG. 16 and paragraphs [0050] and [0090] with historical data in order to determine if the measurements indicate a stress pattern. A current event pattern (the-precursor to a major event) is being used here in order to determine that a future health event may occur.
Furthermore, Applicant states that Miller fails to teach the initiation of database operations. Pauws et al. was used to teach this.
Lastly, Applicant states that predicting when a second event may occur is not the same or equivalent to generating an event risk score indicating a probability of an occurrence of a second medical event. The predict a second event element was used as a placeholder for substitution of functional elements, where predict a second event is a placeholder for substitution. Miller did not teach the initiation of certain database operations, but Pauws et al. did.
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 1-21 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. Claims 1-10 and 21 are drawn to a media, claims 11-19 are drawn to a method, and claim 20 is drawn to a system, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-21 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions which, when executed by a) one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising:
1) receiving, by b) an electronic medical record store, from c) a medical device, information for an individual;
2) based on the information received by the electronic medical record store, determining that the individual is currently experiencing an occurrence of a first medical event, wherein the first medical event is a medical emergency and c) wherein the information is collected from the individual by the medical device while the medical device is connected to the individual; and
3) in response to determining the occurrence of the first medical event for the individual and during the occurrence of the first medical event:
3a) initiating database operations for determining a probability of an occurrence of a second medical event, the database operations including:
3a1) sampling, from a plurality of medical data elements in the electronic medical record store that are associated with the individual, a pre-selected set of medical data elements for predicting the probability of the occurrence of the second medical event based on the occurrence of the first medical event; and
3a2) generating an event risk score for the individual by performing a logistical regression analysis of the pre-selected set of medical data elements sampled from the electronic medical record store, wherein the event risk score indicates the probability of the occurrence of the second medical event for the individual;
4) wherein the individual is treated based at least in part on the event risk score.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 2) based on the information received by the medical record store (when mental memory or a pen and paper), determining that the individual is currently experiencing an occurrence of a first medical event, wherein the first medical event is a medical emergency and 3) in response to determining the occurrence of the first medical event for the individual and during the occurrence of the first medical event: 3a1) sampling, from a plurality of medical data elements in the medical record store that are associated with the individual, a pre-selected set of medical data elements for predicting the probability of the occurrence of the second medical event based on the occurrence of the first medical event and 3a2) generating an event risk score for the individual by performing a logistical regression analysis of the pre-selected set of medical data elements sampled from the medical record store, wherein the event risk score indicates the probability of the occurrence of the second medical event for the individual. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how an individual could use a patient’s data in order to treat an individual generically (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) for why the treatment of the present claims is not particular).
Claim 1 also recites, in part, performing the steps of 3a2) generating an event risk score for the individual by performing a logistical regression analysis of the pre-selected set of medical data elements sampled from the medical record store, wherein the event risk score indicates the probability of the occurrence of the second medical event for the individual. This step corresponds to Mathematical Concepts.
Going forward, the above abstract concepts will be considered as a singular abstract idea. Independent claims 11 and 20 recite similar limitations and are also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 2-10, 12-19, and 21 include all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 3 and 13 add the additional step of “generating and communicating a signal comprising an indication of the occurrence of the first medical event”; claims 4 and 14 add the additional step of “generating an automated medical management plan for the individual based on the event risk score, wherein the individual is treated in accordance with the automated medical management plan”; claims 5 and 15 add the additional steps of “accessing an electronic medical record (EMR) for the individual” and “modifying the EMR to include the event risk score, wherein modification of the EMR for the individual includes one or more of modifying an existing data element, adding a new data element, or overriding an existing data element with a new data element within the EMR”; claims 6 and 16 add the additional step of “assigning the event risk score to one of a low probability risk category, a moderate probability risk category, or a high probability risk category, wherein the low probability risk category corresponds to the event risk score in a first range, the moderate probability risk category corresponds to the event risk score in a second range, and the high probability risk category corresponds to the event risk score in a third range, wherein a value of the event risk score in the third range is greater than a value of the event risk score in the second range, and a value of the event risk score in the second range is greater than a value of the event risk score in the first range”; claims 8 and 18 add the additional steps of “generating a first visually perceptible element that represents the event risk score and a second visually perceptible element that represents whether the event risk score is assigned to a low probability risk category, a moderate probability risk category, or a high probability risk category” and “delivering the first visually perceptible element and the second visually perceptible element to a browser window that displays the first and second visually perceptible elements”; claim 10 adds the additional step of “generating and communicating at least a first alert comprising the event risk score to a medical professional when the event risk score meets or exceeds a predetermined threshold, wherein the first alert to the medical professional further comprises one or more of an option to customize a medical management plan and an option to communicate a message to the individual containing the event risk score and the medical management plan”; and claim 21 adds the additional steps of “detecting updates to the pre-selected set of medical data elements in the electronic medical record store” and “generating an updated event risk score for the individual based at least on the updates to the pre- selected set of medical data elements”. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 2, 7, 9, 12, 17, 19, and 21 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 2-10, 12-19, and 21 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 11 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) one or more hardware processors, b) an electronic medical record store, c) a medical device, wherein the information is collected from the individual by the medical device while the medical device is connected to the individual, and d) a system comprising: at least one device including a hardware processor (from claim 20) to perform the claimed steps.
The claims also include the additional elements steps of 1) “receiving, by an electronic medical record store, from a medical device, information for an individual”, 3a) “initiating database operations for determining a probability of an occurrence of a second medical event”, and 4) “wherein the individual is treated based at least in part on the event risk score”.
The a) one or more hardware processors, b) an electronic medical record store, and d) a system comprising: at least one device including a hardware processor in these steps and the additional element step of 3a) “initiating database operations for determining a probability of an occurrence of a second medical event” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, where there is a lack of description of anything but what may be considered as generic components for these elements including paragraph [0019] where the processor can be a generic component, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Also, the c) medical device, wherein the information is collected from the individual by the medical device while the medical device is connected to the individual in these steps and the additional element step of 1) “receiving, by an electronic medical record store, from a medical device, information for an individual” adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Lastly, the additional element step of 4) “wherein the individual is treated based at least in part on the event risk score” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, 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. 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, the additional elements of using a) one or more hardware processors, b) an electronic medical record store, c) a medical device, wherein the information is collected from the individual by the medical device while the medical device is connected to the individual, and d) a system comprising: at least one device including a hardware processor (from claim 20) to perform the claimed steps and the additional elements steps of 1) “receiving, by an electronic medical record store, from a medical device, information for an individual”, 3a) “initiating database operations for determining a probability of an occurrence of a second medical event”, and 4) “wherein the individual is treated based at least in part on the event risk score” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity) and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain mathematical concepts and certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention generates a risk score utilizing a) one or more hardware processors, b) an electronic medical record store, and d) a system comprising: at least one device including a hardware processor to perform the claimed steps and the additional element step of 3a) “initiating database operations for determining a probability of an occurrence of a second medical event”, thus these computing component are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, the c) medical device, wherein the information is collected from the individual by the medical device while the medical device is connected to the individual to perform the claimed steps and the additional element step of 1) “receiving, by an electronic medical record store, from a medical device, information for an individual” in these steps add insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives medical device data and information, and transmits this data to system over a network, for example the Internet.
Lastly, the additional element step of 4) “wherein the individual is treated based at least in part on the event risk score” applies the abstract idea in the form of a generic treatment.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-21 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2015/0305675 to Miller et al. in view of U.S. 2017/0337345 to Pauws et al.
As per claim 1, Miller et al. teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising:
--receiving, by an electronic medical record store, from a medical device, information for an individual; (see: 1510 and 1530 of FIG. 15 where there is reception of information from a medical device here for a user)
--based on the information received by the electronic medical record store, determining that the individual is currently experiencing an occurrence of a first medical event, (see: 1620, 1640, and 1650 of FIG. 16 where there is a determination that a person is experiencing an event based on information provided by a wearable using an input device (which has access to a medical record store of information from the wearable). Also see: paragraphs [0050] and [0090] where the detection of potential events in the future based on current event patterns. The detection of the event does not necessarily indicate that the event has subsided) wherein the first medical event is a medical emergency and wherein the information is collected from the individual by the medical device while the medical device is connected to the individual; (see: paragraph [0103] where the event is an emergency and the information being collected is being collected as the person is wearing the device) and
--in response to determining the occurrence of the first medical event for the individual and during the occurrence of the first medical event:
--predict a second event; (see: paragraph [0052] where there is prediction of a second event based on the first. In other words, there is a prediction of a second event in response to determining the occurrence of the first medical event and it can be during the first occurrence of the event)
--wherein the individual is treated (see: paragraph [0115] where there is a treatment regimen which is used to treat the patient).
Miller et al. may not further, specifically teach predict a second event as:
1) --initiating database operations for determining a probability of an occurrence of a second medical event, the database operations including:
1a) --sampling, from a plurality of medical data elements in the electronic medical record store that are associated with the individual, a pre-selected set of medical data elements for predicting the probability of the occurrence of the second medical event based on the occurrence of the first medical event; and
1b) --generating an event risk score for the individual by performing a logistical regression analysis of the pre-selected set of medical data elements sampled from the electronic medical record store, wherein the event risk score indicates the probability of the occurrence of the second medical event for the individual.
Miller et al. may also not further, specifically teach:
2) --wherein the individual is treated based at least in part on the event risk score.
Pauws et al. teaches:
--predict a second event as:
1) --initiating database operations for determining a probability of an occurrence of a second medical event, (see: paragraphs [0062] and [0071] where there are database operations) the database operations including:
1a) --sampling, from a plurality of medical data elements in the electronic medical record store that are associated with the individual, a pre-selected set of medical data elements for predicting the probability of the occurrence of the second medical event based on the occurrence of the first medical event; (see: paragraphs [0010] and [0072] where other subject risk profiles are being gathered for comparison with the subject’s risk profile to determine matches. The pre-selected set of medical data elements here is the time series of risk scores) and
1b) --generating an event risk score for the individual by performing a logistical regression analysis of the pre-selected set of medical data elements sampled from the electronic medical record store, (see: paragraph [0099] where a logistic regression model may be used that scores the likelihood of hospitalization where the likelihood is the second risk event score for the subject. This is done based on an analysis of the time series of risk scores (sampled medical elements)) wherein the event risk score indicates the probability of the occurrence of the second medical event for the individual; (see: paragraph [0010] where the event risk score here is a likelihood of occurrence of a medical event (second event) for a subject).
2) --wherein the individual is treated based at least in part on the event risk score (see: paragraphs [0012] and [0087] where the risk score can be factored in to help provide a treatment to a 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 substitute 1) initiating database operations for determining a probability of an occurrence of a second medical event, the database operations including 1a) sampling, from a plurality of medical data elements in the electronic medical record store that are associated with the individual, a pre-selected set of medical data elements for predicting the probability of the occurrence of the second medical event based on the occurrence of the first medical event and 1b) generating an event risk score for the individual by performing a logistical regression analysis of the pre-selected set of medical data elements sampled from the electronic medical record store, wherein the event risk score indicates the probability of the occurrence of the second medical event for the individual as taught by Pauws et al. for the step of predicting a second event as disclosed by Miller et al. since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Miller et al. already teaches of prediction of a second event using a first event thus one could substitute how that second event is found and obtain predictable results of predicting a second event. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have 2) wherein the individual is treated based at least in part on the event risk score as taught by Pauws et al. in the media as taught by Miller et al. with the motivation(s) of preventing the missing of serious events (see: paragraph [0007] of Pauws et al.).
As per claim 2, Miller et al. and Pauws et al. in combination teaches the media of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Miller et al. further teaches wherein determining the occurrence of the first medical event for the individual comprises receiving a signal comprising an indication of the occurrence of the first medical event (see: 1620 of FIG. 16 where there is a determination of an occurrence of an event. Also see: paragraph [0092] where there is reception of a signal of a medical event).
As per claim 3, Miller et al. and Pauws et al. in combination teaches the media of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Miller et al. further teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
--generating and communicating a signal comprising an indication of the occurrence of the first medical event (see: 1620 of FIG. 16 where there is a determination of an occurrence of an event. Also see: paragraph [0092] where there is reception of a signal of a medical event. There is generation and communication of a signal here).
As per claim 4, Miller et al. and Pauws et al. in combination teaches the media of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Pauws et al. further teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
--generating an automated medical management plan for the individual based on the event risk score, (see: paragraph [0097] where there is automatic generation of an action such as an intervention (automated medical management plan) based on this likelihood (event risk score)) wherein the individual is treated in accordance with the automated medical management plan (see: paragraphs [0012] and [0087] where the risk score can be factored in to help provide a treatment to a patient).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 9, Miller et al. and Pauws et al. in combination teaches the media of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Pauws et al. further teaches wherein the plurality of medical data elements comprise demographic data, medication data, laboratory data, medical history data, and social determinant data (see: paragraph [0062] where there is a database of previously acquired risk profiles. Also see: paragraph [0054] where demographic data may be acquired for the subject as well as clinical information such as medication when determining the risk profiles).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 10, Miller et al. and Pauws et al. in combination teaches the media of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Pauws et al. further teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
--generating and communicating at least a first alert comprising the event risk score to a medical professional when the event risk score meets or exceeds a predetermined threshold, (see: paragraphs [0011] and [0097] where an action may be taken to prevent the occurrence of the medical event when the likelihood of the medical event (the event risk score) exceeds a threshold. Also a user is provided with a notification or information on any possible medical event such that an appropriate action can be taken) wherein the first alert to the medical professional further comprises one or more of an option to customize a medical management plan and an option to communicate a message to the individual containing the event risk score and the medical management plan (see: paragraphs [0011] and [0097] where an action may be taken to prevent the occurrence of the medical event when the likelihood of the medical event (the event risk score) exceeds a threshold. Also a user is provided with a notification or information on any possible medical event such that an appropriate action can be taken. The action here would be the management plan and there is an option to communicate a message to the individual).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 11, claim 11 is similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner as claim 1 using the Miller et al. and Pauws et al. references in combination. Miller et al. further teaches wherein the method is performed by at least one device including a hardware processor (see: paragraph [0064] where there is a processor).
As per claim 12, claim 12 is similar to claim 2 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner as claim 2 using the Miller et al. and Pauws et al. references in combination.
As per claim 13, claim 13 is similar to claim 3 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner as claim 3 using the Miller et al. and Pauws et al. references in combination.
As per claim 14, claim 14 is similar to claim 4 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner as claim 4 using the Miller et al. and Pauws et al. references in combination.
As per claim 19, claim 19 is similar to claim 9 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner as claim 9 using the Miller et al. and Pauws et al. references in combination.
As per claim 20, claim 20 is similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner as claim 1 using the Miller et al. and Pauws et al. references in combination. Miller et al. further teaches a system comprising:
--at least one device including a hardware processor; the system being configured to perform operations (see: paragraph [0064] where there is a processor and operations are being performed).
Claims 5-6, 15-16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2015/0305675 to Miller et al. in view of U.S. 2017/0337345 to Pauws et al. as applied to claim 1 and 11, and further in view of U.S. 2015/0095046 to Pironti et al.
As per claim 5, Miller et al. and Pauws et al. in combination teaches the media of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the operations further comprise:
--accessing an electronic medical record (EMR) for the individual; and
--modifying the EMR to include the event risk score, wherein modification of the EMR for the individual includes one or more of modifying an existing data element, adding a new data element, or overriding an existing data element with a new data element within the EMR.
Pironti et al. teaches:
--wherein the operations further comprise:
--accessing an electronic medical record (EMR) for the individual; (see: FIG. 5 and paragraph [0033] where a health plan member is assigned to a risk tier based on their scores) and
--modifying the EMR to include the event risk score, (see: FIG. 5 and paragraph [0033] where there is a modification of a record to include a score) wherein modification of the EMR for the individual includes one or more of modifying an existing data element, adding a new data element, or overriding an existing data element with a new data element within the EMR (see: FIG. 5 and paragraph [0033] where tier assignment is indicative of new data whether it be in place of old data or not).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the operations further comprise: accessing an electronic medical record (EMR) for the individual and modifying the EMR to include the event risk score, wherein modification of the EMR for the individual includes one or more of modifying an existing data element, adding a new data element, or overriding an existing data element with a new data element within the EMR as taught by Pironti et al. in the media as taught by Miller et al. and Pauws et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of detecting conditions to mitigate risk of health plan members (see: paragraphs [0004] – [0005] of Pironti et al.).
As per claim 6, Miller et al. and Pauws et al. in combination teaches the media of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the operations further comprise:
--assigning the event risk score to one of a low probability risk category, a moderate probability risk category, or a high probability risk category, wherein the low probability risk category corresponds to the event risk score in a first range, the moderate probability risk category corresponds to the event risk score in a second range, and the high probability risk category corresponds to the event risk score in a third range, wherein a value of the event risk score in the third range is greater than a value of the event risk score in the second range, and a value of the event risk score in the second range is greater than a value of the event risk score in the first range.
Pironti et al. teaches:
--wherein the operations further comprise:
--assigning the event risk score to one of a low probability risk category, a moderate probability risk category, or a high probability risk category, (see: FIG. 3 and paragraph [0031] where the scores are used to categorize a person into 1 to 3 categories including a low, moderate, or high category tier assignment is indicative of new data whether it be in place of old data or not) wherein the low probability risk category corresponds to the event risk score in a first range, the moderate probability risk category corresponds to the event risk score in a second range, and the high probability risk category corresponds to the event risk score in a third range, (see: FIG. 3 and paragraph [0031] where the scores fall into categories. Also see: FIG. 6 where scores are being assessed to determine if they fall outside of threshold amounts (ranges)) wherein a value of the event risk score in the third range is greater than a value of the event risk score in the second range, and a value of the event risk score in the second range is greater than a value of the event risk score in the first range (see: FIG. 7 and paragraph [0033] where a health plan member is assigned to a risk tier based on their scores).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the operations further comprise: assigning the event risk score to one of a low probability risk category, a moderate probability risk category, or a high probability risk category, wherein the low probability risk category corresponds to the event risk score in a first range, the moderate probability risk category corresponds to the event risk score in a second range, and the high probability risk category corresponds to the event risk score in a third range, wherein a value of the event risk score in the third range is greater than a value of the event risk score in the second range, and a value of the event risk score in the second range is greater than a value of the event risk score in the first range as taught by Pironti et al. in the media as taught by Miller et al. and Pauws et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of detecting conditions to mitigate risk of health plan members (see: paragraphs [0004] – [0005] of Pironti et al.).
As per claim 15, claim 15 is similar to claim 5 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner as claim 5 using the Miller et al., Pauws et al., and Pironti et al. references in combination.
As per claim 16, claim 16 is similar to claim 6 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner as claim 6 using the Miller et al., Pauws et al., and Pironti et al. references in combination.
As per claim 21, Miller et al. and Pauws et al. in combination teaches the media of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Miller et al. further teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
--detecting updates to the pre-selected set of medical data elements in the electronic medical record store; and
--generating an updated event risk score for the individual based at least on the updates to the pre-selected set of medical data elements.
Pironti et al. teaches:
--detecting updates to the pre-selected set of medical data elements in the electronic medical record store; (see: paragraphs [0038] and [0046] where there is updates to medical data which is detected for certain data) and
--generating an updated event risk score for the individual based at least on the updates to the pre-selected set of medical data elements (see: paragraphs [0038] and [0046] where there is updates to medical data which is detected for certain data. Also see: paragraph [0053] where there is an updated risk score which is calculated).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to detect updates to the pre-selected set of medical data elements in the electronic medical record store and generate an updated event risk score for the individual based at least on the updates to the pre-selected set of medical data elements as taught by Pironti et al. in the media as taught by Miller et al. and Pauws et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of detecting conditions to mitigate risk of health plan members (see: paragraphs [0004] – [0005] of Pironti et al.).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2015/0305675 to Miller et al. in view of U.S. 2017/0337345 to Pauws et al. as applied to claim 1 and 11, and further in view of U.S. 2004/0249669 to Pollack et al.
As per claim 7, Miller et al. and Pauws et al. in combination teaches the media of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the pre-selected set of medical data elements have a statistical significance of at least P<0.05 for predicting the probability of occurrence of the second medical event.
Pollack et al. teaches:
--wherein the pre-selected set of medical data elements have a statistical significance of at least P<0.05 for predicting the probability of occurrence of the second medical event (see: paragraph [0044] where there are variables of at least P<0.05).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the pre-selected set of medical data elements have a statistical significance of at least P<0.05 for predicting the probability of occurrence of the second medical event as taught by Pollack et al. in the media as taught by Miller et al. and Pauws et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of maximizing predictive accuracy (see: paragraph [0047] of Pollack et al.).
As per claim 17, claim 17 is similar to claim 7 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner as claim 7 using the Miller et al., Pauws et al., and Pollack et al. references in combination.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2015/0305675 to Miller et al. in view of U.S. 2017/0337345 to Pauws et al. as applied to claim 1 and 11, and further in view of U.S. 2016/0117466 to Singh.
As per claim 8, Miller et al. and Pauws et al. in combination teaches the media of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the operations further comprise:
--generating a first visually perceptible element that represents the event risk score and a second visually perceptible element that represents whether the event risk score is assigned to a low probability risk category, a moderate probability risk category, or a high probability risk category; and
--delivering the first visually perceptible element and the second visually perceptible element to a browser window that displays the first and second visually perceptible elements.
Singh teaches:
--wherein the operations further comprise:
--generating a first visually perceptible element that represents the event risk score and a second visually perceptible element that represents whether the event risk score is assigned to a low probability risk category, a moderate probability risk category, or a high probability risk category; (see paragraphs [0143] – [0144] where there are first and second visual elements which visually display the total score (first visual element) and risk category (second visual element) of the evaluee. These visual elements are being generated for display) and
--delivering the first visually perceptible element and the second visually perceptible element to a browser window that displays the first and second visually perceptible elements (see paragraphs [0143] – [0144] where there are first and second visual elements which visually display the total score (first visual element) and risk category (second visual element) of the evaluee. A report is being delivered to a user with this information. Also see: paragraph [0185] where the applications 3780 may include a browser for receiving content streams on the mobile device. Thus a browser window may display this information).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the operations further comprise: generating a first visually perceptible element that represents the event risk score and a second visually perceptible element that represents whether the event risk score is assigned to a low probability risk category, a moderate probability risk category, or a high probability risk category and delivering the first visually perceptible element and the second visually perceptible element to a browser window that displays the first and second visually perceptible elements as taught by Singh in the media as taught by Miller et al. and Pauws et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of identifying individuals who are likely to have adverse outcomes (see: paragraph [0003] of Singh).
As per claim 18, claim 18 is similar to claim 8 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner as claim 8 using the Miller et al., Pauws et al., and Singh references in combination.
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 Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights