DETAILED ACTION
Notices to Applicant
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-26 as filed 03/20/2026, are currently pending and have been considered below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application No. 16/330,674, filed 03/05/2019, which is a U.S. National Stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 of International Patent Application No. PCT/US2017/050306, filed 09/09/2017, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/383,655, filed 09/06/2016.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 03/20/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,729 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-12 and 24 are drawn to a method for generating a health management template for a patient condition, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. method).
Independent Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for generating a health management template for a patient condition, comprising: retrieving a healthcare template corresponding to a patient condition, the healthcare template comprising a plurality of data fields;
populating the data fields with patient data; and
generating an updated healthcare template based on a user input, comprising: identifying in one or more databases a set of plurality of similar physicians having similarities to the user;
identifying in the one or more databases a set of a plurality of similar patients having similarities to the patient;
generating and displaying a first list of recommended information items based on collaborative filtering of information in the one or more databases associated with the set of similar physicians and the set of similar patients;
receiving user input after displaying the first list of recommended information items, wherein the user input includes at least one of (1) a selection of an information item on the first list, or (2) a search term outside of the information items on the first list;
generating and displaying a second list of recommended information items in response to the user input representing the selection of an information item from the first list, wherein the second list of recommended information items is based on the selected information item from the first list, and collaborative filtering of the information in the one or more databases associated with the set of similar patients and the set of similar physicians; and
generating and displaying a third list of recommended information items in response to the user input representing the selection of the search term outside of the information items on the first list, wherein the third list of recommended information items is based on the search term outside of the information items on the first list, and collaborative filtering of the information in the one or more databases associated with the set of similar patients and the set of similar physicians.
The above claim limitations, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people through following rules or instructions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the above bolded additional elements such as “one or more databases,” and “displaying a first list … a second list … a third list,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from organizing human activity. For example, but for the “one or more databases,” and “displaying a first list … a second list … a third list,” language, retrieving a healthcare template corresponding to a patient condition, the healthcare template comprising a plurality of data fields; populating the data fields with patient data; and generating an updated healthcare template based on a user input, comprising: identifying a set of plurality of similar physicians having similarities to the user; identifying a set of a plurality of similar patients having similarities to the patient; generating a first list of recommended information items based on collaborative filtering of information associated with the set of similar physicians and the set of similar patients; receiving user input after displaying the first list of recommended information items, wherein the user input includes at least one of (1) a selection of an information item on the first list, or (2) a search term outside of the information items on the first list; generating a second list of recommended information items in response to the user input representing the selection of an information item from the first list, wherein the second list of recommended information items is based on the selected information item from the first list, and collaborative filtering of the information associated with the set of similar patients and the set of similar physicians; and generating a third list of recommended information items in response to the user input representing the selection of the search term outside of the information items on the first list, wherein the third list of recommended information items is based on the search term outside of the information items on the first list, and collaborative filtering of the information associated with the set of similar patients and the set of similar physicians in the context of this claim encompasses the management of personal behavior or interactions between people for generating a health management template for a patient condition. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people through following rules or instructions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the above bolded additional elements such as using “one or more databases,” and “displaying a first list … a second list … a third list,” to perform the claim limitations. The elements in each of these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., one or more databases such as a local or remote database and displaying via a patient user interface as they relate to a general purpose computer components (Application Specification [0014]-[0015], [0037], [0041], [0044]). As such, the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 above bolded additional elements such as using “one or more databases,” and “displaying a first list … a second list … a third list,” to perform the claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. (i.e., one or more databases such as a local or remote database and displaying via a patient user interface as they relate to a general purpose computer components (Application Specification [0014]-[0015], [0037], [0041], [0044]). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 24 include limitations of the independent claim and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein. The dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. These additional claims recite what the data is and how it is analyzed. These information characteristics do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the managing personal behavior or interactions between people through following rules or instructions for generating a health management template for a patient condition. Dependent claims 10-12 recite the additional elements of “displaying” the respective lists, however, this amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea using a generic computer component of. displaying via a patient user interface. See Application Specification [0014]-[0015], [0037], [0041], [0044]); MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore the dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 13-21 and 25 are drawn to a system for generating a health management template for a patient condition, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Independent Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 13 recites:
13. A system for generating a health management template for a patient condition, comprising:
a data interface in electrical communication with a processor, a patient database, a patient user interface, and a template database;
the user interface configured to retrieve a healthcare template corresponding to a patient condition, the healthcare template comprising a plurality of data fields;
populating, by the user interface, the plurality data fields with patient data; and
generating, by the processor, an updated healthcare template based on a user input, comprising:
identifying in the patient database a set of plurality of similar physicians having similarities to the user;
identifying in the patient database a set of a plurality of similar patients having similarities to the patient;
generating and displaying a first list of recommended information items based on collaborative filtering of information in the patient database associated with the set of similar physicians and the set of similar patients;
receiving user input after displaying the first list of recommended information items, wherein the user input includes at least one of (1) a selection of an information item on the first list, or (2) a search term outside of the information items on the first list;
generating and displaying a second list of recommended information items in response to the user input representing the selection of an information item from the first list, wherein the second list of recommended information items is based on the selected information item from the first list, and collaborative filtering of the information in the patient database associated with the set of similar patients and the set of similar physicians; and
generating and displaying a third list of recommended information items in response to the user input representing the selection of the search term outside of the information items on the first list, wherein the third list of recommended information items is based on the search term outside of the information items on the first list, and collaborative filtering of the information in the patient database associated with the set of similar patients and the set of similar physicians.
The above claim limitations, as drafted, is a machine that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people through following rules or instructions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the above bolded additional elements such as “a data interface in electrical communication with a processor, a patient database, a patient user interface, and a template database” and “displaying a first list … a second list … a third list,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from organizing human activity. For example, but for the “a data interface in electrical communication with a processor, a patient database, a patient user interface, and a template database” and “displaying a first list … a second list … a third list,” language, retrieving a healthcare template corresponding to a patient condition, the healthcare template comprising a plurality of data fields; populating the data fields with patient data; and generating an updated healthcare template based on a user input, comprising: identifying a set of plurality of similar physicians having similarities to the user; identifying a set of a plurality of similar patients having similarities to the patient; generating a first list of recommended information items based on collaborative filtering of information associated with the set of similar physicians and the set of similar patients; receiving user input after displaying the first list of recommended information items, wherein the user input includes at least one of (1) a selection of an information item on the first list, or (2) a search term outside of the information items on the first list; generating a second list of recommended information items in response to the user input representing the selection of an information item from the first list, wherein the second list of recommended information items is based on the selected information item from the first list, and collaborative filtering of the information associated with the set of similar patients and the set of similar physicians; and generating a third list of recommended information items in response to the user input representing the selection of the search term outside of the information items on the first list, wherein the third list of recommended information items is based on the search term outside of the information items on the first list, and collaborative filtering of the information associated with the set of similar patients and the set of similar physicians in the context of this claim encompasses the management of personal behavior or interactions between people for generating a health management template for a patient condition. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people through following rules or instructions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the above bolded additional elements such as using “a data interface in electrical communication with a processor, a patient database, a patient user interface, and a template database,” and “displaying a first list … a second list … a third list,” to perform the claim limitations. The elements in each of these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a data interface and a patient user interface to retrieve healthcare template and healthcare data in communication with a processor e.g. a central processing unit device, patient and template databases such as a local or remote database as they relate to a general purpose computer components (Application Specification [0014]-[0015], [0036], [0037], [0041], [0044])). As such, the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 above bolded additional elements such as using “a data interface in electrical communication with a processor, a patient database, a patient user interface, and a template database,” and “displaying a first list … a second list … a third list,” to perform the claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. (i.e., a data interface and a patient user interface to retrieve healthcare template and healthcare data in communication with a processor e.g. a central processing unit device, patient and template databases such as a local or remote database as they relate to a general purpose computer components (Application Specification [0014]-[0015], [0036], [0037], [0041], [0044])). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 14-21 and 25 include limitations of the independent claim and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein. The dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. These additional claims recite what the data is and how it is analyzed. These information characteristics do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the managing personal behavior or interactions between people through following rules or instructions for generating a health management template for a patient condition. Dependent claims 19-21 recite the additional elements of “displaying” the respective lists, however, this amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea using a generic computer component of. displaying via a patient user interface. See Application Specification [0014]-[0015], [0037], [0041], [0044]); MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore the dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 22-23 and 26 are drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium bearing instructions for generating a health management template for a patient condition, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Independent Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 22 recites:
22. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium bearing instructions for generating a health management template for a patient condition, the instructions, when executed by a processor in electrical communication with a template database, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
retrieving a healthcare template from the template database corresponding to a patient condition, the healthcare template comprising a plurality of data fields;
populating the data fields with patient data; and generating an updated healthcare template based on a user input, comprising:
identifying in one or more databases a set of plurality of similar physicians having similarities to a user;
identifying in the one or more databases a set of a plurality of similar patients having similarities to the patient;
generating and displaying a first list of recommended information items based on collaborative filtering of information in the one or more databases associated with the set of similar physicians and the set of similar patients;
receiving user input after displaying the first list of recommended information items, wherein the user input includes at least one of (1) a selection of an information item on the first list, or (2) a search term outside of the information items on the first list;
generating and displaying a second list of recommended information items in response to the user input representing the selection of an information item from the first list, wherein the second list of recommended information items is based on the selected information item from the first list, and collaborative filtering of the information in the one or more databases associated with the set of similar patients and the set of similar physicians; and
generating and displaying a third list of recommended information items in response to the user input representing the selection of the search term outside of the information items on the first list, wherein the third list of recommended information items is based on the search term outside of the information items on the first list, and collaborative filtering of the information in the one or more databases associated with the set of similar patients and the set of similar physicians.
The above claim limitations, as drafted, is a manufacture that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people through following rules or instructions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the above bolded additional elements such as “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium bearing instructions for generating a health management template for a patient condition, the instructions, when executed by a processor in electrical communication with a template database, cause the processor to perform operations,” “one or more databases,” and “displaying a first list … a second list … a third list,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from organizing human activity. For example, but for the “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium bearing instructions for generating a health management template for a patient condition, the instructions, when executed by a processor in electrical communication with a template database, cause the processor to perform operations,” “one or more databases,” and “displaying a first list … a second list … a third list,” language, retrieving a healthcare template corresponding to a patient condition, the healthcare template comprising a plurality of data fields; populating the data fields with patient data; and generating an updated healthcare template based on a user input, comprising: identifying a set of plurality of similar physicians having similarities to the user; identifying a set of a plurality of similar patients having similarities to the patient; generating and displaying a first list of recommended information items based on collaborative filtering of information associated with the set of similar physicians and the set of similar patients; receiving user input after displaying the first list of recommended information items, wherein the user input includes at least one of (1) a selection of an information item on the first list, or (2) a search term outside of the information items on the first list; generating and displaying a second list of recommended information items in response to the user input representing the selection of an information item from the first list, wherein the second list of recommended information items is based on the selected information item from the first list, and collaborative filtering of the information associated with the set of similar patients and the set of similar physicians; and generating and displaying a third list of recommended information items in response to the user input representing the selection of the search term outside of the information items on the first list, wherein the third list of recommended information items is based on the search term outside of the information items on the first list, and collaborative filtering of the information associated with the set of similar patients and the set of similar physicians in the context of this claim encompasses the management of personal behavior or interactions between people for generating a health management template for a patient condition. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people through following rules or instructions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the above bolded additional elements such as using “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium bearing instructions for generating a health management template for a patient condition, the instructions, when executed by a processor in electrical communication with a template database, cause the processor to perform operations,” “one or more databases,” and “displaying a first list … a second list … a third list,” to perform the claim limitations. The elements in each of these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a data interface and a patient user interface to retrieve healthcare template and healthcare data in communication with a processor e.g. a central processing unit device, performing instructions of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, patient and template databases such as a local or remote database as they relate to a general purpose computer components (Application Specification [0014]-[0015], [0036], [0037], [0041], [0044])). As such, the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 above bolded additional elements such as using “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium bearing instructions for generating a health management template for a patient condition, the instructions, when executed by a processor in electrical communication with a template database, cause the processor to perform operations,” “one or more databases,” and “displaying a first list … a second list … a third list,” to perform the claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. (i.e., a data interface and a patient user interface to retrieve healthcare template and healthcare data in communication with a processor e.g. a central processing unit device, performing instructions of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, patient and template databases such as a local or remote database as they relate to a general purpose computer components (Application Specification [0014]-[0015], [0036], [0037], [0041], [0044])). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 23 and 26 includes limitations of the independent claim and is directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein. The dependent claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because it is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These additional claim recites what the data is and how it is analyzed. These information characteristics do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the managing personal behavior or interactions between people through following rules or instructions for generating a health management template for a patient condition. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore the dependent claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed on 03/20/2026.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that:
Regarding the Double Patenting rejection rejection of claims 1-23, Applicant argues withdrawal in view of the filed terminal disclaimer; and
Regarding the 101 rejection of claims 1-23, Applicant argues the claims recite patient eligible subject matter directed to computer technology for identifying relevant patient-specific information in healthcare applications that define technical improvements in the technical field of healthcare information retrieval systems.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (a) regarding the Double Patenting rejection of claims 1-23, Examiner is persuaded and has withdrawn the prior rejection in view of the filed and entered terminal disclaimer.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (b) regarding the 101 rejection of claims 1-23, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that prior art systems have substantial limitations because they require physicians to “manually look up information in various places,” and conventional systems were “slow, inefficient, cumbersome, and error prone,” See Remarks at pg. 12. Applicant directs a solution to the problems of inefficiency with “collaborative filtering,” which is based on information with sets of similar physicians and sets of similar patients for “1. identifying in a database a set of similar physicians having similarities to the user; 2. identifying in a database a set of similar patients having similarities to the patient; 3. generating and displaying a first list of recommended information items based on collaborative filtering of information associated with the sets of similar physicians and similar patients; 4. generating and displaying a second list of recommended information items based on selected information from the first list, and collaborative filtering of information associated with the sets of similar physicians and similar patients; and 5. generating and displaying a third list of recommended information items based on selection of a search term outside of the information on the first list, and collaborative filtering of information associated with the sets of similar physicians and similar patients.” See Remarks at pg. 13. Examiner respectfully submits that, but for the database element and displaying element of these features, each features 1-5 are directed to the abstract idea of rule or instructions for managing personal behavior or interactions between people. These are rules or instructions as to which data is considered and analyzed for making recommended lists of items based on a defined criteria. Under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the application specification, “collaborative filtering” is an algorithm for data analysis to generate recommendations. See [0017], [0056], [0061], [0069]. That is, the limitations reflect an improvement to the abstract idea itself, not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology.
Applicant argues in view of Enfish and Desjardins as direction for technological improvement, looking at the claims as a whole. Examiner respectfully disagrees that, when viewing the additional elements of the claim as a whole, that the claim is directed to a technical solution to a particular technical problem. When viewing the claim as a whole, the claim is directed to generating a health management template for a patient condition, which is an abstract idea of a personal behavior. The additional elements of the claim invoke using “one or more databases” for data retrieval; also recites additional elements of displaying based on the retrieved data, wherein the display element is recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to mere data input (i.e. user data selection) and data output (displaying lists) (i.e., one or more databases such as a local or remote database and displaying via a patient user interface as they relate to a general purpose computer components (Application Specification [0014]-[0015], [0037], [0041], [0044]). These additional elements, both individually and as a whole, amount to “apply it” instruction steps of utilizing generic computer components of databases and user interfaces in their ordinary capacity of data storage and retrieval thereof, and data input/output. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The claim as a whole, merely invokes these general purpose computing components to more efficiently perform the algorithmic collaborative filtering instructions for generating recommendations for generating the healthcare template i.e. the abstract idea. This is not a reflection of a technical improvement of a technical solution to a technical problem. Unlike Desjardins, which teaches the technical solution of overcoming particular technical problem as it relates to artificial intelligence hallucinations and memory thereof, the instant claims are directed to an abstract solution to an abstract problem, applied to a computerized environment to solve problems rooted in timeliness, which is using the general purpose computing components in their ordinary capacity to produce the the abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully submits that the instant claims recite an alleged improvement to the abstract idea itself, and not a technical solution to a technical problem. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection I (Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979 ("Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry."). Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Cf. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (emphasis in original)) A new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
New dependent claims 24-26 recite further limitations directed to the abstract idea, claiming rules or instructions of the collaborative filtering algorithm (e.g.. collaborative filtering based on physician status information and summary statistics, or physician patient lists). These are informational characteristics of rules to which data is filtered based on the applied algorithm. This is part of the abstract idea, not an additional element.
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully maintains the 101 rejection of claims 1-26 as applied in the above Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 2006/0229932 A1 teaches collaborative filers(s) to make recommendations or reports based on data contained in a request in view of the neighborhoods formed for whether a physician or decision maker and a product of interest is considered suitably similar by the indigence in the recommendation engine based on a variety of factors ([0027]);
U.S. 2013/0332195 A1 teaches collaborative filtering to show relationships between characteristics and such as a person with characteristics A, B, C, and D get a certain disease at a certain age so that prophylactic action can be taken ([0135], [0136]);
U.S. 2014/0046683 A1 teaches analysis of information in the data infrastructure can include generation of a trajectory, fuzzy logic guidance, collaborative filtering prediction, disease maps, and data reports for clinical trials or new drug discovery; Examples of applications of a data infrastructure include reports (public or private), alerts (for example alerts of a user, clinician, clinical trial, or a pharmacy), and dynamic, adjustable trials ([0230]);
U.S. 2016/0110523 A1 teaches assembling a database of electronic medical records searchable based on at least some active diagnosis module content (Abstract);
U.S. 2012/0102405 A1 teaches a content management system (CMS) that may acquire, organize, structure, parse, index and vet evidence-based medical information, physician expertise, physician experience, or combinations thereof, to create an actionable database by methods of a collaborative, crowd-sourced manner ([0178]); and
U.S. 2016/0147954 A1 teaches a collaborative filtering/recommendation information set can be provided through analysis of data and feedback from one or more users to determine relevancy (e.g., relevancy of clinical documents such as radiology reports, etc.) ([0116]).
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 ANTHONY BALAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-8181. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/FONYA M LONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights