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 .
Claims 1-26 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-24 in the reply filed on 02/18/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 25-26 are withdrawn.
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 1-24 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 1-24 are drawn to a system for processing health information which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 1-24 (Group I) recite a system, comprising:
a data processing apparatus including a plurality of computers (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it); and
a non-transitory computer readable memory storing instructions executable by the data processing apparatus and that upon such execution cause the data processing apparatus to perform operations comprising (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it, MPEP § 2106.05(g), insignificant extra-solution activity):
for each of a plurality of users:
establishing, for the user, a unique account for the user;
receiving, for the user, a set of data sources for the user, each data source being different from each other data source, and each data source requiring login credentials for the user;
for at least one or more of the data sources, establishing, by the system and without user input, login credentials for the user; and
storing in association with the unique account for the user, the login credentials for the user (MPEP § 2106.05(g), insignificant extra-solution activity);
for the at least one or more data sources of the set of data sources for the user:
establishing, using the login credential for the data source established by the system, a connection to the data source;
receiving, from the data source, health data specific to the user; and
storing, in the unique account of the user, the health data for the user received from each data source in a data store (MPEP § 2106.05(g), insignificant extra-solution activity).
The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are underlined and are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent Claims 2-24 include other limitations, for example Claim 2 recites for each unique account: for data sources from which health data is received, determining whether the health data received from the data source requires data cleaning; for a first data source for which health data is determined to not require data cleaning, storing the health data in the unique account of the user; for a second data source for which health data is determined to require data cleaning: determining whether changes resulting from the data cleaning trigger a user alert; in response to determining the changes resulting from the data cleaning trigger the user alert: notifying the user to validate the changes before persisting the changes; and persisting the changes only in response to the user validating the change; and in response to determining the changes resulting from the data cleaning do not trigger the user alert, persisting the changes, Claim 3 recites for each unique account: for each data source from which health data is received: determining whether the health data received from the data source requires data cleaning, the determining comprising: determining, for the health data received from the data source, a health data type; determining, for the health data type, health data values required for the health data type; determining whether the health data values in the health data received form the data source do not match the health data values required for the health data type; for each data source for which the health data values of the health data received does not match the health data values required for the health data type, determining the health data received from the data source requires cleaning; and
for each data source for which the health data values of the health data received do match the health data values required for the health data type, determining the health data received from the data source does not require cleaning, Claim 4 recites for health data from a data source determined to require cleaning: determining health data values that are missing from the health data; generating a query for the data source requesting the health data values that are determined to be missing from the health data; and
sending the query to the data source, Claim5 recites for health data from a data source determined to require cleaning: determining health data values that are missing from the health data; determining that at least one of the health data values is an index value that references the health data values that are missing from the health data in a health data database; and querying the health data database using the index value to obtain the health data values that are missing from the health data; and augmenting the health data with the health data values obtained from the health data, Claim 6 recites wherein the operation of storing, in the unique account of the user, the health data for the user received from each data source, comprises: for at least one data source, receiving health data in a non-standardized format, the non-standardized format being a format different from a standardized format in which health data is stored in the data store; determining a conversion of the health data in the non-standardized format to the standardized format based on the non-standardized format; converting, based on conversation, the health data from the non-standardized format to the standardized format; and storing the converted health data in the standardized format in the data store, Claim 7 recites for each unique account: receiving, from the user of the account, share data specifying a plurality of share levels for the health data, wherein different portions of the health data are each associated with a different share level; and
for each portion of the health data associated with a particular share level, enabling sharing of the health data according to the share level, Claim 8 recites for a unique account of a user, receiving data describing a user obligation to share particular health data of the user with a third party; determining that the share level of the particular health data precludes sharing of the particular health data with the third party;
in response to determining that the share level of the particular health data precludes sharing of the particular health data with the third party, determining a user preference for a share conflict; and performing a share resolution process according to the user preference, Claim 9 recites wherein determining a user preference for a share conflict comprises determining whether the user preference is an automatic override of the share level or a user sharing conformation; in response to determining the user preference is an automatic override of the share level, allowing, without user confirmation, sharing of the particular health data with only the third party; and
in response to determining the user preference is user sharing confirmation, requesting the user confirm sharing of the particular health data with the third party, Claim 10 recites for each unique account: determining, based on the health data of the user, that a health metric value has deviated from a baseline value; determining, based on the health metric value that has been determined to deviate from the baseline value, one or more questions to present to the user; presenting the one or more questions to the user and storing the responses from the user to the one or more questions; and based on the health metric values and the responses, determining potential causes that caused the health metric value to deviate from the baseline value, Claim 11 recites for each unique account: determining, based on the health data of the user, that a health metric value triggers a health inquiry; determining, based on the health inquiry determination, one or more questions to present to the user; presenting the one or more questions to the user and storing the responses from the user to the one or more questions; and based on the health metric values and the responses, determining potential causes that caused the health metric value to trigger a health inquiry, Claim 12 recites for each user: determining, from the health data stored for the user account of the user, health preferences; determining, from the health preferences, a set of type weights, wherein each type weight describes an estimated level of user interest in a particular heath service type; selecting, based on the type weights, one or more health service recommendations for the user; and providing, to the user, the one or more selected health service recommendations, Claim 13 recites wherein the one or more health service recommendations include adjusting share levels of health data, a health product recommendation, a health action recommendation, and a health content stream recommendation, Claim 14 recites receiving, from one of the data sources, a health history request for a user, the health history request specifying a plurality of health data values of the user to be provided; in response to the health history request, providing, to the one of the data sources, the health data values of the user, Claim 15 recites wherein in response to the health history request, providing, to the one of the data sources, the health data values of the user, comprises: sending, to the user, a request for confirmation to share the health data values to the one of the data sources; and providing, in response to the health history request, to the one of the data sources, the health data values of the user only in response to receiving a confirmation from the user, Claim 16 recites wherein the health data for one or more users include, for each of the one or more users, medications the user is taking and a schedule for each medication, and the operations further comprising, for each user of the one or more users: determining a periodic dosing schedule for each medication, the dosing schedule indicating, for each medication, a time to administer the medication, the determining comprising: for each medication, accessing medication data describing dosing requirements and constraints, medication interactions with other medications, and side effects of the medications; determining, from the health data of the user, an activity pattern data of the user, the activity pattern data specifying user activities over multiple periodic dosing periods; based on the medication data and the activity pattern data of the user, determining a periodic dosing schedule that specifies, for a time period and for each medication, a time to administer the medication; sending, to a user device of a user for display to the user, the periodic dosing schedule; and monitoring the dosing schedule for the user, the monitoring comprising at each time to administer a medication, sending, to the user device, a notification to the user to administer the medication, Claim 17 recites wherein sending, to the user device, a notification to the user to administer the medication comprises sending, to an electronic pill package that stores the medications for one or more periodic dosing schedules, data that causes electronic pill package to generate an audible and/or visual notification for the user, Claim 18 recites wherein the audible or visual notification specifies a specific compartment of the electronic pill package that stores a particular medication to be administered, Claim 19 recites wherein based on the medication data and the activity pattern data of the user, determining a periodic dosing schedule that specifies, for a time period and for each medication, a time to administer the medication comprises determining the periodic dosing schedule for at least one medication based on a dependency of food ingestion, Claim 20 recites determining, based on the dosing schedule for a user, a quantity of medications to store in each of a plurality of pill receptacles in the electronic pill package; and providing data that describes, to the user, the quantity of medications to store in each of a plurality of pill receptacles in the electronic pill package, Claim 21 recites determining, for a user account, a set of goals for tracking, wherein the goals are specific to a particular condition; determining, based on health data of a user of the user account, a corresponding set of goal values for the set of goals; receiving, from one or more user devices of the user, data indicating progress of the user in achieving each goal value for each goal in the set of goals; determining, from the data indicating progress of the user in achieving each goal value for each goal in the set of goals, an overall goal achievement of the user; and providing, to a user device associated with the user, data that causes the user device to display, for each goal in the set of goals, a progress measure in achieving the goal, and the overall goal achievement of the user, Claim 22 recites determining, for each goal of the set of goals for tracking, whether the goal is trackable by a user instrumentation; for each goal that is determined to be trackable by a user instrumentation: determining whether the user account receives data from the user instrumentation for the goal; and for each goal for which the user account does not data from the user instrumentation for the goal, generating data that causes a user device of the user to display a recommendation for one or more devices that perform the function of the user instrumentation; and for each goal that is determined to not be trackable by a user instrumentation, periodically providing data to a user device of the user that causes the user device to display an input user interface in which the user may enter the data indicating progress of the user in achieving the goal value, and receiving, from the user device, the data indicating progress of the user in achieving the goal value, Claim 23 recites determining, based on health data of the user of the user device, for a particular goal of the set of goals, that the user cannot perform activities to progress in achieving the goal value, and in response: suspending the collection of data indicating progress of the user in achieving the particular goal value; and adjusting the determining of the overall goal achievement of the user by omitting data indicating progress of the user in achieving each goal value of the particular goal from the determination, Claim 24 recites determining, based on health data of the user of the user device, for a particular goal for which it was determined that the user cannot perform activities to progress in achieving the goal value, that the user can perform activities to progress in achieving the goal value, and in response: resuming the collection of data indicating progress of the user in achieving the particular goal value; and adjusting the determining of the overall goal achievement of the user by including the data indicating progress of the user in achieving each goal value of the particular goal from the determination, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claim 1.
Furthermore, Claims 1-24 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of a data processing apparatus including a plurality of computers, a non-transitory computer readable memory storing instructions executable by the data processing apparatus, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs [0085], [0214] and [0328] of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea – for example, the recitation of storing of data in a database, which amounts to an insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs [0085], [0214] and [0328] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. a data processing apparatus including a plurality of computers, a non-transitory computer readable memory storing instructions executable by the data processing apparatus) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. storing data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the current invention merely recites the storing of instructions, login credentials and health data data on a database and/or electronic memory.
Dependent Claims 2-24 include other limitations, but none of these functions are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly represent no more than electronic recordkeeping (e.g. the storing feature of dependent Claim 6.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-24 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fierer (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0107794 A1) in view of Tambasco (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0370969 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fierer discloses a system, comprising:
a data processing apparatus including a plurality of computers (Paragraphs [0016-0017] discuss a system containing an aggregation server and multiple computers.); and
a non-transitory computer readable memory storing instructions executable by the data processing apparatus and that upon such execution cause the data processing apparatus to perform operations comprising (Paragraph [0007] discusses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing code to execute the invention.):
for each of a plurality of users (Paragraph [0019] discusses the below steps being done for respective user patients.):
establishing, for the user, a unique account for the user (Paragraphs [0020-0021] discusses establishing a master record for each user.);
receiving, for the user, a set of data sources for the user, each data source being different from each other data source, and each data source requiring login credentials for the user (Paragraphs [0020-0021] discusses the patient’s data being received from various data portals, each requiring login credentials for that website.);
for at least one or more of the data sources, establishing, by the system, login credentials for the user (Paragraphs [0021-0022] discusses accessing the patient’s data from various data portals using the patient’s login information.); and
storing in association with the unique account for the user, the login credentials for the user (Paragraph [0020] discusses storing the patient’s information as part of their profile, including the login credentials to the various data portals.);
for the at least one or more data sources of the set of data sources for the user: establishing, using the login credential for the data source established by the system, a connection to the data source (Paragraphs [0021-0022] discuss the aggregation server establishing a connection to each of the portals for the patient.);
receiving, from the data source, health data specific to the user (Paragraph [0033] discusses reconnecting and detecting any changes in the patient’s data, which is then updated in the patient’s profile.); and
storing, in the unique account of the user, the health data for the user received from each data source in a data store (Paragraph [0033] discusses reconnecting and detecting any changes in the patient’s data, which is then updated and stored in the patient’s profile.);
but Fierer does not appear to explicitly disclose:
establishing, by the system and without user input, login credentials for the user.
Tambasco teaches establishing, by the system and without user input, login credentials for the user (Paragraphs [0056] and [0059] discuss automatically registering the patient with a patient portal, construed as establishing without user input, login credentials for the user.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fierer to include establishing, by the system and without user input, login credentials, as taught by Tambasco, in order to “provide the account information to the user patient (Tambasco, Paragraph [0056]).”
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fierer in view of Tambasco, and in further view of De Araujo (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0245270 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Fierer does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the operation of storing, in the unique account of the user, the health data for the user received from each data source, comprises:
for at least one data source, receiving health data in a non-standardized format, the non-standardized format being a format different from a standardized format in which health data is stored in the data store;
determining a conversion of the health data in the non-standardized format to the standardized format based on the non-standardized format;
converting, based on conversation, the health data from the non-standardized format to the standardized format; and
storing the converted health data in the standardized format in the data store.
De Araujo teaches wherein the operation of storing, in the unique account of the user, the health data for the user received from each data source, comprises:
for at least one data source, receiving health data in a non-standardized format, the non-standardized format being a format different from a standardized format in which health data is stored in the data store (Paragraphs [0020] and [0052] discuss standardizing received healthcare data of disparate sources or formats to a common format.);
determining a conversion of the health data in the non-standardized format to the standardized format based on the non-standardized format (Paragraphs [0020] and [0046] discuss converting the data using pattern recognition.);
converting, based on conversation, the health data from the non-standardized format to the standardized format (Paragraph [0020] discusses converting the data using pattern recognition.); and
storing the converted health data in the standardized format in the data store (Paragraph [0020] discusses storing the converted data.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fierer to include converting the data to a standardized format, as taught by De Araujo, for “managing access to patient healthcare data (De Araujo, Paragraph [0046]).”
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fierer in view of Tambasco, and in further view of Marchosky (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0117215 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Fierer does not appear to explicitly disclose the operations further comprising, for each unique account:
receiving, from the user of the account, share data specifying a plurality of share levels for the health data, wherein different portions of the health data are each associated with a different share level; and
for each portion of the health data associated with a particular share level, enabling sharing of the health data according to the share level.
Marchosky teaches for each unique account:
receiving, from the user of the account, share data specifying a plurality of share levels for the health data, wherein different portions of the health data are each associated with a different share level (Paragraph [0019] discusses the user can authorize or deny access to their medical and biographical records or limit access to only portions of their medical record to specific health care professionals.); and
for each portion of the health data associated with a particular share level, enabling sharing of the health data according to the share level (Paragraph [0019] and [0046] discuss that the user can authorize or deny access to their medical and biographical records or limit access to only portions of their medical record to specific health care professionals. Once given authorization, the files can accessed.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tambasco to share levels, as taught by Marchosky, in order to control “privacy of the patient and confidentiality of the patient's medical and biographical information (Marchosky, Paragraph [0019]).”
Claim 10, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fierer in view of Tambasco, and in further view of Boland (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0181721 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Fierer does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprising, for each unique account:
wherein the operations further comprising, for each unique account:
determining, based on the health data of the user, that a health metric value has deviated from a baseline value;
determining, based on the health metric value that has been determined to deviate from the baseline value, one or more questions to present to the user;
presenting the one or more questions to the user and storing the responses from the user to the one or more questions; and
based on the health metric values and the responses, determining potential causes that caused the health metric value to deviate from the baseline value.
Boland teaches:
determining, based on the health data of the user, that a health metric value has deviated from a baseline value (Paragraphs [0229-0231] discussed based on a personalized health plan determining that a user has deviated.);
determining, based on the health metric value that has been determined to deviate from the baseline value, one or more questions to present to the user (Paragraphs [0229-0231] discussed based on a personalized health plan determining that a user has deviated.);
presenting the one or more questions to the user and storing the responses from the user to the one or more questions (Paragraph [0222] discusses asking the patient a question in response to the detected deviation.); and
based on the health metric values and the responses, determining potential causes that caused the health metric value to deviate from the baseline value (Paragraph [0222] discusses using that information to determine cause of the deviation.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fierer to include detecting a deviation from a baseline value and determining why, as taught by Boland, for “providing continuous health care plan coordination between a patient and the patient's care team member(s) (Boland, Paragraph [0001]).”
Regarding claim 11, Fierer does not appear to explicitly disclose the operations further comprising, for each unique account:
determining, based on the health data of the user, that a health metric value triggers a health inquiry;
determining, based on the health inquiry determination, one or more questions to present to the user;
presenting the one or more questions to the user and storing the responses from the user to the one or more questions; and
based on the health metric values and the responses, determining potential causes that caused the health metric value to trigger a health inquiry.
Boland teaches for each unique account:
determining, based on the health data of the user, that a health metric value triggers a health inquiry(Paragraphs [0229-0231] discussed based on a personalized health plan determining that a user has deviated.);
determining, based on the health inquiry determination, one or more questions to present to the user (Paragraph [0222] discusses asking the patient a question in response to the detected deviation.);
presenting the one or more questions to the user and storing the responses from the user to the one or more questions (Paragraph [0222] discusses asking the patient a question in response to the detected deviation.); and
based on the health metric values and the responses, determining potential causes that caused the health metric value to trigger a health inquiry (Paragraph [0222] discusses using that information to determine cause of the trigger.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fierer to include triggers a health inquiry and determining why, as taught by Boland, for “providing continuous health care plan coordination between a patient and the patient's care team member(s) (Boland, Paragraph [0001]).”
Regarding claim 21, Fierer does not appear to explicitly disclose the operations further comprising:
determining, for a user account, a set of goals for tracking, wherein the goals are specific to a particular condition; determining, based on health data of a user of the user account, a corresponding set of goal values for the set of goals; receiving, from one or more user devices of the user, data indicating progress of the user in achieving each goal value for each goal in the set of goals; determining, from the data indicating progress of the user in achieving each goal value for each goal in the set of goals, an overall goal achievement of the user; and providing, to a user device associated with the user, data that causes the user device to display, for each goal in the set of goals, a progress measure in achieving the goal, and the overall goal achievement of the user.
Boland teaches:
determining, for a user account, a set of goals for tracking, wherein the goals are specific to a particular condition (Paragraphs [0230] and [0238] discuss the personalized health care plan comprising at least one health goal of the patient, which can be related to a health condition, such as managing diabetes.);
determining, based on health data of a user of the user account, a corresponding set of goal values for the set of goals (Paragraphs [0054-0055] discuss the plan being customized for the patient and their lifestyle.);
receiving, from one or more user devices of the user, data indicating progress of the user in achieving each goal value for each goal in the set of goals;
determining, from the data indicating progress of the user in achieving each goal value for each goal in the set of goals, an overall goal achievement of the user (Paragraphs [0123-0124] discuss determining the patient’s progress towards their goals.); and
providing, to a user device associated with the user, data that causes the user device to display, for each goal in the set of goals, a progress measure in achieving the goal, and the overall goal achievement of the user (Paragraphs [0116] and [0123-0124] discuss determining the patient’s progress towards their goals.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fierer to include goals, as taught by Boland, for “providing continuous health care plan coordination between a patient and the patient's care team member(s) (Boland, Paragraph [0001]).”
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fierer in view of Tambasco, and in further view of Perkins (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0227172 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Fierer does not appear to explicitly disclose the operations further comprising, for each user:
determining, from the health data stored for the user account of the user, health preferences;
determining, from the health preferences, a set of type weights, wherein each type weight describes an estimated level of user interest in a particular heath service type;
selecting, based on the type weights, one or more health service recommendations for the user; and
providing, to the user, the one or more selected health service recommendations.
Perkins teaches:
determining, from the health data stored for the user account of the user, health preferences (Paragraph [0024] discusses taking into account user health preferences.);
determining, from the health preferences, a set of type weights, wherein each type weight describes an estimated level of user interest in a particular heath service type (Paragraphs [0024], [0101] and [0106] discuss using multiple factors to determine a patient’s interest in a particular service.);
selecting, based on the type weights, one or more health service recommendations for the user (Paragraph [0106] discusses making recommendations based on the interest of the individuals.); and
providing, to the user, the one or more selected health service recommendations (Paragraphs [0090] and [0106] discuss displaying data to the patient, construed as including service recommendations.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fierer to include service recommendations, as taught by Perkins, to help positively impact the patient’s health (Perkins, Paragraph [0004]).”
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fierer in view of Tambasco, and in further view of Hansen (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0047032 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Fierer does not appear to explicitly disclose the operations further comprising:
receiving, from one of the data sources, a health history request for a user, the health history request specifying a plurality of health data values of the user to be provided;
in response to the health history request, providing, to the one of the data sources, the health data values of the user.
Hansen teaches:
receiving, from one of the data sources, a health history request for a user, the health history request specifying a plurality of health data values of the user to be provided (Paragraph [0063] discusses a trigger indications and/or access information request.);
in response to the health history request, providing, to the one of the data sources, the health data values of the user (Paragraph [0063] discusses that after verification, the information is provided back to the requestor.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fierer to include accessing patient information, as taught by Hansen, “for consumption and/or interaction therewith by the patient/member (Hansen, Paragraph [0063]).”
Regarding claim 15, Fierer does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein in response to the health history request, providing, to the one of the data sources, the health data values of the user, comprises:
sending, to the user, a request for confirmation to share the health data values to the one of the data sources; and
providing, in response to the health history request, to the one of the data sources, the health data values of the user only in response to receiving a confirmation from the user.
Hansen teaches:
sending, to the user, a request for confirmation to share the health data values to the one of the data sources (Paragraph [0063] discusses that authorization can be required before releasing the data/information.); and
providing, in response to the health history request, to the one of the data sources, the health data values of the user only in response to receiving a confirmation from the user (Paragraph [0063] discusses when authorization is required before releasing the data/information, the data will not be provided until the authorization is complete.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fierer to include requiring confirmation before accessing patient information, as taught by Hansen, “for consumption and/or interaction therewith by the patient/member (Hansen, Paragraph [0063]).”
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fierer in view of Tambasco, and in further view of Goyal (U.S. Pub. 2020/0185075 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Fierer discloses wherein the health data for one or more users include, for each of the one or more users, medications the user is taking and a schedule for each medication (Paragraphs [0021-0022] and [0063] discuss the user’s prescribed medication and refill dates are included.);
however, Fierer does not appear to explicitly disclose the operations further comprising, for each user of the one or more users:
determining a periodic dosing schedule for each medication, the dosing schedule indicating, for each medication, a time to administer the medication, the determining comprising:
for each medication, accessing medication data describing dosing requirements and constraints, medication interactions with other medications, and side effects of the medications;
determining, from the health data of the user, an activity pattern data of the user, the activity pattern data specifying user activities over multiple periodic dosing periods;
based on the medication data and the activity pattern data of the user, determining a periodic dosing schedule that specifies, for a time period and for each medication, a time to administer the medication; sending, to a user device of a user for display to the user, the periodic dosing schedule; and monitoring the dosing schedule for the user, the monitoring comprising at each time to administer a medication, sending, to the user device, a notification to the user to administer the medication.
Goyal teaches:
for each user of the one or more users:
determining a periodic dosing schedule for each medication, the dosing schedule indicating, for each medication, a time to administer the medication (Paragraphs [0030-0031] discuss using a scheduling engine for medications including dosages and administration times.), the determining comprising:
for each medication, accessing medication data describing dosing requirements and constraints, medication interactions with other medications, and side effects of the medications (Paragraph [0032] discusses a safety engine checking for interactions, side effects and dosing requirements.);
determining, from the health data of the user, an activity pattern data of the user, the activity pattern data specifying user activities over multiple periodic dosing periods (Paragraphs [0030-0031 and [0038] discuss using patient’s statistics and adherence metrics.);
based on the medication data and the activity pattern data of the user, determining a periodic dosing schedule that specifies, for a time period and for each medication, a time to administer the medication (Paragraphs [0030-0031], [0033], and [0036] discuss determining a schedule for the patient’s medication based on the data.);
sending, to a user device of a user for display to the user, the periodic dosing schedule (Paragraph [0037] discusses sending the schedule to the patient.); and
monitoring the dosing schedule for the user, the monitoring comprising at each time to administer a medication, sending, to the user device, a notification to the user to administer the medication (Paragraphs [0027] and [0037] discuss sending the patient alerts or notifications when their medications should be taken.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fierer to include medication adherence, as taught by Goyal, for “enabling a patient to self-administer medications in a safe and accurate manner (Goyal, Paragraph [0001]).”
Regarding claim 19, Fierer does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein based on the medication data and the activity pattern data of the user, determining a periodic dosing schedule that specifies, for a time period and for each medication, a time to administer the medication comprises determining the periodic dosing schedule for at least one medication based on a dependency of food ingestion.
Goyal teaches wherein based on the medication data and the activity pattern data of the user, determining a periodic dosing schedule that specifies, for a time period and for each medication, a time to administer the medication comprises determining the periodic dosing schedule for at least one medication based on a dependency of food ingestion (Paragraphs [0024] and [0032] discuss a safety checker that accounts for drug food interactions prior to making recommendations.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fierer to include medication recommendations, as taught by Goyal, for “enabling a patient to self-administer medications in a safe and accurate manner (Goyal, Paragraph [0001]).”
iConclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is (303)297-4782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 MT.
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, Jason Dunham can be reached at (571)272-8109. 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.
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights