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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/09/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-17 and 22-25 remain pending in this application.
Specification
New Matter
The amendment filed 07/09/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The newly added recitation of “integrating a first set of content corresponding to the EMR of the patient and a second set of content corresponding to a clinician workflow of a clinician together in a standardized format based on the condition or risk data”, “receiving of notifications in real-time of modifications by provider care-team devices other than the care-team device of the one or more information elements” within claims 1, 8 and 15, “integrating the first set and the second set together in the standardized format comprises embedding the second set into the first set” within claim 25 appears to constitute new matter.
In particular, Applicant does not point to, nor was the Examiner able to find, any support for a “integrating a first set of content corresponding to the EMR of the patient and a second set of content corresponding to a clinician workflow of a clinician together in a standardized format based on the condition or risk data”, “receiving of notifications in real-time of modifications by provider care-team devices” features within the specification as originally filed. As such, Applicant is respectfully requested to clarify the above issues and to specifically point out support for the newly added limitations in the originally filed specification and claims.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office action.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 22-23 incorporate the deficiencies of independent claims 1, 8 and 15, through dependency, and are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-17 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended to recite “integrating a first set of content corresponding to the EMR of the patient and a second set of content corresponding to a clinician workflow of a clinician together in a standardized format based on the condition or risk data”, “receiving of notifications in real-time of modifications by provider care-team devices other than the care-team device of the one or more information elements” and newly added claim 25 recites “integrating the first set and the second set together in the standardized format comprises embedding the second set into the first set”. The current specification does not describe the features of sending or receiving real-time notifications or any real-time communications as well as information in a standardized format and integrating data to the standardized format.
Therefore, claims 1, 8, 15 and 24 recite limitations that are new matter as discussed above.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 22-24 incorporate the deficiencies of independent claims 1, 8, 15, through dependency, and are also rejected.
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 1-17 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 and 22-25 are drawn to a non-transitory media which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture). Claims 8-14 are drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 15-17 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended to recite:
“identifying, at a longitudinal plan system, an electronic medical record (EMR) of a patient from a plurality of patient EMRs, the plurality of patient EMRs searchable for a particular health concept, wherein the particular health concept corresponds to one or more items selected from a group comprising at least a health concern, a social concern, a goal, and an activity associated with a patient, and wherein patient identifier information corresponding to the patient is attached to or included in the EMR of the patient;
determining that a problem documented in the EMR of the patient corresponds to a condition or risk associated with the health concern of the patient and to the particular health concept;
responsive to determining that the problem corresponds to the condition or risk and to the particular health concept:
performing one or both of creating condition or risk data for the patient and storing information corresponding to the condition or risk data in the EMR of the patient; and integrating a first set of content corresponding to the EMR of the patient and a second set of content corresponding to a clinician workflow of a clinician together in a standardized format based on the condition or risk data, wherein:
(a) the clinician workflow of the clinician is associated with personnel identifier information, and
(b) the personnel identifier information indicates one or both of (i) at least one care-team member and (ii) the condition or risk associated with the health concern of the patient;
creating a first electronic access by provider care-team devices of a set of disparate communication devices having differing hardware and software platforms, via a personnel application programmable interface (API), to enable (a) modifying by each care team device of the provider care-team devices of one or more information elements selected from a group comprising the EMR of the patient and the clinician workflow of the clinician and (b) receiving of notifications in real-time of modifications by provider care-team devices other than the care-team device of the one or more information elements, wherein modifying the one or more information elements is based on data associated with the personnel identifier information; and
creating a second electronic access, by a patient device of the set of disparate communication devices via a patient API, to enable modifying by the patient device of one or several information elements selected from the group comprising the EMR of the patient and the clinician workflow of the clinician, wherein modifying the one or several information elements is based on data associated with the patient identifier information”.
The limitations of “identifying, at a longitudinal plan system, an electronic medical record (EMR) of a patient from a plurality of patient EMRs, the plurality of patient EMRs searchable for a particular health concept, wherein the particular health concept corresponds to one or more items selected from a group comprising at least a health concern, a social concern, a goal, and an activity associated with a patient, and wherein patient identifier information corresponding to the patient is attached to or included in the EMR of the patient; determining that a problem documented in the EMR of the patient corresponds to a condition or risk associated with the health concern of the patient and to the particular health concept; responsive to determining that the problem corresponds to the condition or risk and to the particular health concept: performing one or both of creating condition or risk data for the patient and storing information corresponding to the condition or risk data in the EMR of the patient…” correspond to an abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity”, since the claims recite an abstract idea of managing interactions between people, such as user following rules and instructions. The mere nominal recitation of a generic one or more processors does not take the claims out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-17, 22-25 are ultimately dependent from claims 1, 8, 15 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15. Therefore, claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-17, 22-25 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-17, 22-25 describe a further limitation regarding the basis for determining a problem documented that corresponds to a condition of risk and creating condition or risk data for the patient. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claims 1, 8, 15, without adding significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims recite the additional elements of are provided below in the bolded style:
“identifying, at a longitudinal plan system, an electronic medical record (EMR) of a patient from a plurality of patient EMRs, the plurality of patient EMRs searchable for a particular health concept, wherein the particular health concept corresponds to one or more items selected from a group comprising at least a health concern, a social concern, a goal, and an activity associated with a patient, and wherein patient identifier information corresponding to the patient is attached to or included in the EMR of the patient;
determining that a problem documented in the EMR of the patient corresponds to a condition or risk associated with the health concern of the patient and to the particular health concept;
responsive to determining that the problem corresponds to the condition or risk and to the particular health concept:
performing one or both of creating condition or risk data for the patient and storing information corresponding to the condition or risk data in the EMR of the patient; and integrating a first set of content corresponding to the EMR of the patient and a second set of content corresponding to a clinician workflow of a clinician together in a standardized format based on the condition or risk data, wherein:
(a) the clinician workflow of the clinician is associated with personnel identifier information, and
(b) the personnel identifier information indicates one or both of (i) at least one care-team member and (ii) the condition or risk associated with the health concern of the patient;
creating a first electronic access by provider care-team devices of a set of disparate communication devices having differing hardware and software platforms, via a personnel application programmable interface (API), to enable (a) modifying by each care team device of the provider care-team devices of one or more information elements selected from a group comprising the EMR of the patient and the clinician workflow of the clinician and (b) receiving of notifications in real-time of modifications by provider care-team devices other than the care-team device of the one or more information elements, wherein modifying the one or more information elements is based on data associated with the personnel identifier information; and
creating a second electronic access, by a patient device of the set of disparate communication devices via a patient API, to enable modifying by the patient device of one or several information elements selected from the group comprising the EMR of the patient and the clinician workflow of the clinician, wherein modifying the one or several information elements is based on data associated with the patient identifier information”.
These additional elements correspond to hardware and software elements, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular field or technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using one or more processors to perform the identifying, determining and generating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims have been amended to recite “receiving of notifications in real-time of modifications by provider care-team devices other than the care-team device of the one or more information elements”, “detecting an instance of the modifying, (i) via the first electronic access, (ii) in one of the differing formats other than the standardized format, and (iii) by a provider care- team device of the provider care-team devices, of an information element of the one or more information elements; converting data of the instance of the modification to the standardized format” and “propagating in real-time a notification of the instance to a set of device destinations selected from the set of disparate communication devices”. The feature of receiving notifications in real-time in a standardized format is found to be a well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field, as evidenced by Lloyd et al. (hereinafter Lloyd) (US 9,996,664 B2).
In particular, Lloyd discloses “…messages may be sent bi-directionally between healthcare entities and vendor entities and/or applications associated with vendor entities. System 100 may be configured to translate the messages being transmitted to or from the medical record format to or from the standard format in or near real-time. As discussed above, sometimes messages may be transmitted to more than one healthcare entity, individual healthcare entities being associated with the same or different medical record formats. Even if two different healthcare entities are associated with the same or similar medical record format, the individual same or similar medical record formats may differ based upon customizations of the healthcare entity associated with the medical record format. System 100 may be configured to translate messages in or near real-time of transmission regardless of the quirks of individual medical record formats.” in col. 14, line 54 to col. 15, line 3.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed below in the order in which they appear.
Applicant argues that amended claims cannot be directed to the abstract-idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity, since no human is recited in the claims.
In response, Examiner submits that the MPEP recites “The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to: • fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); • commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and • managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) II). The claim limitations correspond to managing interactions between people, such as user following rules and instructions in order to “…select a plan template from a plurality of plan templates…”, “determining that a code, corresponding to a first element in an electronic medical record (EMR) of the patient, is contained in a concept code for a health concern identified by the particular health concept”, “responsive to determining that the code is contained in the concept code: creating for the patient (a) a health concern data item corresponding to the health concern or (b) a clinician workflow associated with the health concern”, “based at least partially on the storing of the plan information, an intervening action comprising a particular treatment procedure is administered to the patient in connection with treating a particular condition associated with one or both of (a) the first element and (b) the health concern identified by the particular health concept”, and by using generic computing components.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is similar to Example 42 of the Guidance and provide additional elements are directed to specific improvement over the prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format in which the information was input by the user.
In response, Examiner submits that the feature of receiving notifications in real-time in a standardized format is found to be a well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field, as evidenced by Lloyd (as indicated in the rejection above). In particular, Lloyd discloses “…messages may be sent bi-directionally between healthcare entities and vendor entities and/or applications associated with vendor entities. System 100 may be configured to translate the messages being transmitted to or from the medical record format to or from the standard format in or near real-time. As discussed above, sometimes messages may be transmitted to more than one healthcare entity, individual healthcare entities being associated with the same or different medical record formats. Even if two different healthcare entities are associated with the same or similar medical record format, the individual same or similar medical record formats may differ based upon customizations of the healthcare entity associated with the medical record format. System 100 may be configured to translate messages in or near real-time of transmission regardless of the quirks of individual medical record formats.” in col. 14, line 54 to col. 15, line 3.
Applicant argues that claim 1 provides an improvement in technology, since claimed limitations (the concept of a service that maps disparate source codings into an ontology-based concept) are not directed to generic computer tasks.
In response, Examiner submits that the feature of “mapping disparate source codings into an ontology-based concept” is not recited in the current claims. Claim limitations of “identifying, at a longitudinal plan system, an electronic medical record (EMR) of a patient from a plurality of patient EMRs, the plurality of patient EMRs searchable for a particular health concept, wherein the particular health concept corresponds to one or more items selected from a group comprising at least a health concern, a social concern, a goal, and an activity associated with a patient, and wherein patient identifier information corresponding to the patient is attached to or included in the EMR of the patient; determining that a problem documented in the EMR of the patient corresponds to a condition or risk associated with the health concern of the patient and to the particular health concept; responsive to determining that the problem corresponds to the condition or risk and to the particular health concept: performing one or both of creating condition or risk data for the patient and storing information corresponding to the condition or risk data in the EMR of the patient…” correspond to an abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity”, since the claims recite an abstract idea of managing interactions between people, such as user following rules and instructions.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILEK B COBANOGLU whose telephone number is (571)272-8295. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Obeid Mamon can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/DILEK B COBANOGLU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights