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 .
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 are directed to an abstract idea because it recites a series of mental processes and rules for organizing human decision making. The claim is fundamentally about gathering information about a person, evaluating that information against stored rules (an analytic method), confirming correctness, and routing to a next step based on the evaluation. These steps mirror human activities such as interviewing a person, checking records, confirming an answer, and deciding what to do next based on predefined criteria. The use of “questions,” “possible answers,” “determining correctness,” “ratifying,” and “routing” reflects abstract mental steps and judgment based workflows that can be performed by a human with pen and paper.
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not improve computer technology itself, nor does it address a technical problem in computer systems. It uses generic computing functions: receiving input, accessing stored data, retrieving information, and displaying results to automate an administrative or analytical decision process. The “automatic retrieval method” and “routing target” are described purely at a functional level without any technical detail about how data is retrieved, how correctness is computed, or how routing is performed in a non-conventional way. The claim simply applies generic computer operations to carry out the abstract workflow more efficiently.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. There is further no improvement to the computing device.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-19 further recite an abstract idea performable by a human and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as they do not provide steps other than what is conventionally known in retrieval management systems.
Claim 2: merely applies generic computer functions to automate a mental decision-making process without integrating the idea into a practical application.
Claims 3 and 8: merely limits the presentation and input steps to a graphical user interface.
Claims 4 and 9: merely substitutes audio output and speech input for visual interaction.
Claims 5 and 10: is directed to the abstract idea of retrieving and evaluating stored information about a person.
Claims 6 and 11: merely applies generic computer functionality to present, select, and issue recommendations, without reciting any technological improvement or unconventional computer operation.
Claim 12: merely applies generic computer functionality to retrieve and present without reciting any technological improvement or unconventional computer operation.
Claim 14: summarizing and presenting results of a rule-based analytic decision process.
Claim 15: a routine and conventional interaction that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 16: organizing and displaying person-specific information.
Claim 18: retrieving and presenting stored information about a person.
Claim 19: presenting information from a record system.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite a “computer-readable media”, which typically covers both transitory and non-transitory medium. Transitory medium including carrier waves or communication media are viewed as physical characteristics of a form or energy, such a frequency, voltage, or the strength of a magnetic field, defined energy or magnetism, per se, and as such are non-statutory natural phenomena. O’Reilly, 56 U.S. (15 How.) at 112-14. Moreover, it does not appear that the claims reciting the signal are encoded with functional descriptive material that fall within any of the categories of the patentable subject matter set forth in § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huyn et al. (US 2002/0035486).
Claim 13,
Huyn teaches a method in a computing system, comprising: accessing a plurality of analytic methods ([0058] [0069] access to multiple questionnaires (analytic method) for a suer (the questionnaire options available to the specified user ID are provided” and the user then selects the desired questionnaires; multiple distinct questionnaires (a general clinical questionnaires and a number of disease-specific questionnaires);
identifying among a plurality of displayed data items relating to a person a group of one or more displayed data items that collectively satisfy a criterion for routing in a distinguished analytic method among the accessed plurality of analytic methods ([0052] [0095-0096] routing criteria defined as condition over multiple responses (data items) and selecting/routing based on whether the condition is satisfied (links are governed by conditional statements… containing references to particular questions and their responses.. much more complex expressions that depend upon responses to more than one question can be used; the web server compares the results with clinical alert conditions representing the medical pathways that were downloaded from the database; a medical pathway is Boolean expression of atomic expressions of the from Qi = Rij); and
in response to the identifying, causing to be displayed in the visual context of the displayed data items an indication of the distinguished analytic method ([0096] [Fig. 16] the browser displays a clinical warning screen; Fig. 16, the subject is requested to complete a clinical questionnaire specific to the disease associated with the identified medical pathway).
Claim 14,
Huyn further teaches the method of claim 13 wherein the indication contains abbreviated contents of a page of the distinguished analytic method to which the identified group of one or more display data items routes ([0093-0094] a summary analysis of a subject’s response data can be presented in tabular, graphical or any other desired format; Fig. 15 shows a tabular summary form.. specific regions of the summary hyperlinked to portions of the questionnaires so that they physician can review the relevant portions).
Claim 15,
Huyn further teaches the method of claim 13 wherein the indication contains a control for displaying a page of the distinguished analytic method to which the identified group of one or more display data items routes ([0094] [Fig. 15] Fig. 15 shows a tabular summary form. Specific regions of the summary are hyperlinked to portions of the questionnaires so that the physician can review the relevant portions of the questionnaire).
Claim 16,
Huyn further teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising: receiving input identifying the person ([0058] at state 116, the user enters a user ID and completes the logon form); and
in response to receiving the input identifying the person, causing the data items about the person to be displayed ([0058] [0093] if the user is authenticated.. questionnaire options are provided; the user then selects the desired questionnaire; at state 128, data downloaded to the web browser, the web browser displays the resulting questions to the user; a summary analysis of a subject’s response data can be presented).
Claim 17,
Huyn further teaches the method of claim 13 wherein the data items are medical data items ([Abstract] medical questionnaire).
Claim 18,
Huyn further teaches the method of claim 13 wherein the displayed data items have been retrieved from a record stored for the person in an electronic medical record system ([0046] [0079] the database server can be in communication with an external medical records application whose data can be transferred to the databased used by the present invention; data from a commercially available medication history electronic records application can be transferred directly into the table represented by the Current Medication History form).
Claim 19,
Huyn further teaches the method of claim 18 wherein the displayed data items have been displayed by the electronic medical record system ([Fig. 15] shows a tabular summary analysis display describing patient response data collected from a single questionnaire session).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huyn et al. (US 2002/0035486) in view of Gardner (US 6,141,694).
Claim 1,
Huyn teaches a method in a computing system, comprising: soliciting and receiving first user input describing an analytic method ([0041] [0067] questionnaire designer creates and edits questionnaires; user friendly interface; the design system is to allow the designer to change or create the questionnaire forms, questions, and response items without having to edit or create the program code or even understand the underlying program and system);
soliciting and receiving second user input specifying one or more questions that are part of the analytic method ([0067] designer can add, edit or delete questions);
for a distinguished one of the at one or more questions specified by the second user input, soliciting and receiving third user input specifying a plurality of possible answers to the question ([0067] designer assembles responses into lists (e.g. “yes” or “no”));
for a distinguished combination of one or more of the possible answers specified by the third user input, soliciting and receiving fourth user input specifying a routing target associated with the distinguished combination ([0067] designer enters form linking logic.. selects the questions and responses that trigger presentations of a next form);
persistently storing an internal representation of the analytic method encoding the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth user input ([0017] [0053] database stores questionnaires objects, forms, form linking conditions; question forms, conditions and response items are represented as database objects).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Huyn does not explicitly teach for a distinguished possible answer among the possible one or more answers of the distinguished combination, soliciting and receiving fifth user input specifying an automatic retrieval method for automatically retrieving data indicating whether the distinguished possible answer is correct for a particular person.
Gardner teaches for a distinguished possible answer among the possible one or more answers of the distinguished combination, soliciting and receiving fifth user input specifying an automatic retrieval method for automatically retrieving data indicating whether the distinguished possible answer is correct for a particular person ([Summary] [Fig. 6] [col. 7 lines 36-60] [col. 8 lines 37-46] determine more reliable source of data, information is retrieved from the more reliable source; list of remote databases maintained; DMV, birth records; replace current data with retrieved data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Huyn with teachings of Gardner by modifying the computerized clinical questionnaire with dynamically presented questions as taught by Huyn to include for a distinguished possible answer among the possible one or more answers of the distinguished combination, soliciting and receiving fifth user input specifying an automatic retrieval method for automatically retrieving data indicating whether the distinguished possible answer is correct for a particular person as taught by Gardner for the benefit of tailor advertising to customers that are likely to be interested (Gardner [Summary]).
Claim 2,
Huyn further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, on behalf of a distinguished person: accessing the stored analytic method internal representation ([0014] [0017] obtaining medical questions and question linking conditions from a database; a database that stores questionnaire objects, including clinical questions and form linking conditions);
presenting distinguished question specified by the second user input ([0014] presenting at least one of the medical questions to a user);
presenting the possible answers specified for the distinguished question by the third user input ([0051] [0081] each potential question can be associated with one or more response items from which a user selects; offer a set of predetermined response items);
in response to the determining, presenting in connection with the distinguished possible answer an indication proposing the distinguished possible answer as correct ([0084] if significant inconsistencies are found, the subject is alerted and asked to verify the correct response);
receiving sixth user input ratifying the distinguished possible answer as correct ([0084] the subject is alerted and asked to verify the correct response);
identifying a routing target specified for a distinguished combination of possible answers that includes the distinguished possible answer ([0052-0053] conditional statements containing references to particular questions and their responses much more complex expressions that depend upon responses to more than one question can be used and form linking logic determines which form to present next); and
presenting information associated with the identified routing target ([0014] [0053] in dependence on said response and said question linking condition, determining which additional, medical questions to present to said user and form linking logic, determines which form to present next).
Gardener further teaches using the fifth user input to automatically retrieve data indicating whether the distinguished possible answer is correct for the distinguished person ([Summary] [col. 7 lines 37-60] one or more facts about the user are maintained; it is determined whether or not a source of data exists that is more reliable; if exists, then information is retrieved from the more reliable source of data and the current information is replaced; a list of remote databases and relative reliability rating may also be maintained);
using the retrieved data to determine that the distinguished possible answer is correct for the distinguished person (at step 635, it is determined whether a more reliable source of data is available; if available, at step 640 the current user data replaced with data retrieved from the more reliable source of data).
Claim 3,
Huyn further teaches the method of claim 2 wherein the presenting presents visual information on a dynamic display device ([0046] the display 36 presents question to the subject; the display 36 can present the question and related information by visual means), and
wherein the sixth user input comprises a display location selected on the dynamic display device ([0080] present a graphical display of the body and invite the subject to select (e.g. with a mouse pointer) an area of the body; the subject can indicate the presence or absence with a mouse click).
Claim 4,
Huyn further teaches the method of claim 2 wherein the presenting presents audio information via an audio output device ([0046] [0080] the display 36 presents question to the subject and related information by auditory means; questions can also be presented in audio format), and
wherein the sixth user input comprises speech ([0080] answers received via voice recognition software that converts spoken responses into a data format).
Claim 5,
Huyn further teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the automatic retrieval method specified by the fifth user input comprises retrieval of the contents of a field specified by the fifth user input in a record corresponding to a person in an electronic medical record system ([0079-0083] in some embodiments, the database server can be in communication with an external medical records application whose data can be transferred to the database used by the present invention; example, transferring EMR record data into a specific table (i.e., a record/field-style structure): data from a commercially available medication history electronic records application can be transferred directly into the table represented by the Current Medication History form; using patient-specific information stored in another database (record source) in conditional logic: evaluation conditions are based not only on responses to questions but on other relevant patient information stored in the database in communication with the web server).
Claim 7,
Huyn teaches one or more instances of computer-readable media collectively having contents configured to cause a computing system to perform a method, the method comprising ([0018] program storage device accessible by a processor):
receiving first user input identifying a distinguished person ([0058] at state 116, the user enter a user ID and completes the logon form):
accessing a stored analytic method ([0014] [0017] obtaining medical questions and question linking condition from a database);
presenting distinguished question specified by the accessed analytic method ([0051] presenting at least one of said medical question to a user);
presenting a plurality of possible answers specified for the distinguished question by the accessed analytic method ([0051] each potential question can be associated with one or more response items from which a user selects);
in response to the determining, presenting in connection with the distinguished possible answer an indication proposing the distinguished possible answer as correct ([0084] if significant inconsistencies are found, the subject is alerted and asked to verify the correct response);
receiving second user input ratifying the distinguished possible answer as correct ([0084] the subject is alerted and asked to verify the correct response);
identifying a routing target specified for a distinguished combination of possible answers that includes the distinguished possible answer ([0052] [0054] conditional statements depend upon responses to more than one question and all questions whose conditions evaluate to true are presented); and
presenting information associated with the identified routing target ([0014] [0059] in dependence on said response data and aid question linking condition, determining which additional medical questions to present to said user).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Huyn does not explicitly teach using an automatic retrieval method specified by the accessed analytic method to automatically retrieve data indicating whether the distinguished possible answer is correct for the distinguished person; using the retrieved data to determine that the distinguished possible answer is correct for the distinguished person.
Gardner teaches using an automatic retrieval method specified by the accessed analytic method to automatically retrieve data indicating whether the distinguished possible answer is correct for the distinguished person ([col. 5 lines 54-67] [col. 8 lines 31-46] one function of the verification process 34 may be to retrieve user data from reliable resources such as online resources; a list of resources known to store user data may be accessed; if a more reliable source is available, the current user data can be replaced with data retrieved from the more reliable source);
using the retrieved data to determine that the distinguished possible answer is correct for the distinguished person ([col. 8 lines 31-46] at step 635, it is determined whether a more reliable source is available then at step 640 the current user data can be replaced with data retrieved from the more reliable source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Huyn with teachings of Gardner by modifying the computerized clinical questionnaire with dynamically presented questions as taught by Huyn to include using an automatic retrieval method specified by the accessed analytic method to automatically retrieve data indicating whether the distinguished possible answer is correct for the distinguished person; using the retrieved data to determine that the distinguished possible answer is correct for the distinguished person as taught by Gardner for the benefit of tailor advertising to customers that are likely to be interested (Gardner [Summary]).
Claim 8,
The one or more instances of computer-readable media of claim 7 wherein the presenting presents visual information on a dynamic display device, and wherein the second user input comprises a display location selected on the dynamic display device. (Claim 8 contains subject matter similar to claim 3, and thus is rejected under similar rationale)
Claim 9,
The one or more instances of computer-readable media of claim 7 wherein the presenting presents audio information via an audio output device, and wherein the second user input comprises speech. (Claim 9 contains subject matter similar to claim 4, and thus is rejected under similar rationale)
Claim 10,
The one or more instances of computer-readable media of claim 7 wherein the automatic retrieval method specified by the accessed analytic method comprises retrieval of the contents of a field specified by the accessed analytic method in a record corresponding to the distinguished person in an electronic medical record system. (Claim 10 contains subject matter similar to claim 5, and thus is rejected under similar rationale)
Claims 6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huyn et al. (US 2002/0035486) in view of Gardner (US 6,141,694) and further in view of Green Jr. et al. (US 2011/0301982).
Claim 6,
Huyn and Gardner teach all the limitations in claim 1. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Huyn nor Gardener explicitly teach wherein the presented information associated with the identified routing target comprises one or more diagnostic and/or treatment orders recommended for the distinguished person by the analytic method, the method further comprising:
receiving seventh user input selecting at least one of the one or more recommended orders; and
in response to receiving the seventh user input, causing the recommended orders selected by the seventh user input to be issued for the person.
Green teaches wherein the presented information associated with the identified routing target comprises one or more diagnostic and/or treatment orders recommended for the distinguished person by the analytic method, the method further comprising ([0341-0343] the X-ray and EKG may be automatically populated as selectable options in the Orders subsection; the CDS system 502 might provide a recommendation that a specific set of admission orders be given):
receiving seventh user input selecting at least one of the one or more recommended orders ([0343] with all of the recommended orders appearing in the Orders subsection, the clinician can select the appropriate orders by selecting from selectable options); and
in response to receiving the seventh user input, causing the recommended orders selected by the seventh user input to be issued for the person ([0343] that alert will either automatically schedule the immunization or generate a clinical flag that directs the clinician or other healthcare prover staff member to schedule the immunization).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Huyn and Gardner with teachings of Green by modifying the computerized clinical questionnaire with dynamically presented questions as taught by Huyn to include wherein the presented information associated with the identified routing target comprises one or more diagnostic and/or treatment orders recommended for the distinguished person by the analytic method, the method further comprising: receiving seventh user input selecting at least one of the one or more recommended orders; and in response to receiving the seventh user input, causing the recommended orders selected by the seventh user input to be issued for the person as taught by Green for the benefit of integrating medical software system with clinical decision support for consuming standardized documents to support clinical decisions with the system (Green [Field of the Invention]).
Claim 11,
The one or more instances of computer-readable media of claim 7 wherein the presented information associated with the identified routing target comprises one or more diagnostic and/or treatment orders recommended for the distinguished person by the analytic method, the method further comprising: receiving third user input selecting at least one of the one or more recommended orders; and in response to receiving the third user input, causing the recommended orders selected by the third user input to be issued for the person. (Claim 11 contains subject matter similar to claim 6, and thus is rejected under similar rationale)
Claim 12,
Huyn further teaches the one or more instances of computer-readable media of claim 11 wherein the causing comprises calling an interface of an electronic medical record system ([0079] that database server can be in communication with an external medical records application whose data can be transferred to the database used by the present invention)
Green further teaches to issue the selected orders for the person ([0343] that recommended orders are placed into an Orders section and once selected/acted upon are scheduled/created; automatically write a prescription).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fagg et al. (US 5,978,784) – A computer-based method for assisting a user in making decisions in the process of completing a task is shown and described. The method of the system includes providing a set of questions for completing the task, asking the user a first question from the set, and providing a choice of answers to the first question. The system also provides advice from its knowledge base for deciding which of the answers to the first question to select. The choice of answer, however, remains under the control of the user, who can exercise judgment based on the user's expertise and the advice provided by the decision management system. The method continues by asking following questions, with the following questions, answers and advice influenced by the user's previous answers. Throughout the decision-making process, the user retains control of the answers if so desired, with the system providing advice from its knowledge base. The system is particularly suited for document assembly in allowing a professional to determine what provisions are suitable for a document to be built from information and judgments provided by the professional and the knowledge base of the system. The system also includes an authoring program for preparing applications that run on the system. Using an intuitive program block approach of the authoring program, an author can construct an application by placing questions, answer choices, advice and textual and logical provisions in named program blocks. The author then assembles and arranges these blocks to build a desired application program.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYANS A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm PST.
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, Pierre Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
SHREYANS A. PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2653
/SHREYANS A PATEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2659