DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the amendments/remarks filed on February 12, 2026. This action is made final.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15-17, 20-24, and 26-28 are pending. Claims 6, 8, 11, 12, 18, 19, and 25 have been previously cancelled. Claims 1, 17, 22 and 23 have been amended. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 12, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejection has been considered but is moot in light of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 101 rejection has been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to identify conditions associated with a medical record and identifying triggering conditions upon which notifications should be sent to appropriate medical providers. Furthermore, the Examiner submits that healthcare itself is inherently represents the organization of human activity. Applicant has not pointed to anything in the claims that fall outside of this characterization. Because the claim elements fall under a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons would follow to assess patient data to determine triggering conditions upon which to notify appropriate personnel, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues the claims have been amended to be analogous to the patent-eligible claims of Desjardins. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims do not recite a machine learning model, much less is there any purported improvement to a machine learning model recited in either the claims or the originally filed specification.
Applicant further argues the claims recite a specific technical architecture that “avoids generating an administrative burden by overwhelming primary care physicians with alerts for each and every care gap detected, regardless of whether they are the appropriate care provider for that gap in care”. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Here, the Applicant’s argued problem is not a technological problem caused by the computer. The problem of administering/managing patient care, is it a problem that existed and/or exists regardless of whether a computer is involved in the process. At best, Applicant’s identified problem of “avoiding an administrative burden” is a management problem. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application.
Accordingly, the previous 101 rejection is maintained.
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 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15-17, 20-24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15-17, 20-24, and 26-28 recite a system for notifying patient contacts based on a triggering condition, which is within the statutory category of a process.
Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. ___ (2014). Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15-17, 20-24, and 26-28, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The bolded limitations of:
Claim 1
instructions for identifying one or more first conditions associated with a subject, and a plurality of contacts associated with the subject, in a data repository comprising a plurality of treatment information units associated with the subject; instructions for discovering a first subset of decision rules from among a plurality of decision rules through a modeling procedure that aligns a first condition in the one or more first conditions against the plurality of decision rules, wherein each decision rule in the first subset of decision rules has a corresponding triggering condition, and the first subset of decision rules models a response to the first condition at a first entity; instructions for activating a first decision rule in the first subset of decision rules whose corresponding triggering condition arises in the data repository; instructions for identifying a first notification rule, from a plurality of notification rules stored in a notification rule repository, that is actionable upon the activating of the first decision rule, wherein each respective notification rule in the plurality of notification rules specifies a different set of endpoints in a plurality of sets of endpoints; and instructions for communicating a first notification to a first notification path in accordance with the first notification rule, using a computer network, wherein the first notification path consists of a first subset of the plurality of contacts selected in accordance with a set of endpoints, in the plurality of sets of endpoints, specified by the first notification rule.
as presently drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions). For example, but for the noted computer elements, the claim encompasses a person following rules or instructions to identify one or more conditions of a patient and notify one or more contacts based on triggering conditions. The examiner further notes that “methods of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility at Pg. 5). If the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing persona behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The additional elements merely amount to instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (“a memory”, “a processor”, “a computer network”—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) indicating mere instructions to apply an abstract idea does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements as part of performing the abstract idea. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools in a conventional way to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2. Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional generic computing elements (“memory”, “processor”, “computer network”—see [0058], [0090] describing the various components as general purpose, common, standard, known to one of ordinary skill, and at a high level of generality, and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements). Therefore, these additional elements amount 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 that amounts to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, translating, and displaying data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions).
Furthermore, as discussed above, the additional element of a “evaluation module” is recited at high levels of generality and were determined to amount 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 that amounts to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent Claims
The limitations of dependent but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented. Claims 2-5 merely recite updating the data, the conditions comprising a diagnosis, and the type of contacts, Claims 2-5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15-17, 20-24, and 26-27 merely recites additional rules/instructions for triggering conditions, which covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 24, and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Said (USPPN: 2020/0234826; hereinafter Said) in further view of Takahashi et al. (USPPN: 2022/0270758; hereinafter Takahashi).
As to claim 1, Said teaches A computer system for check point identification for a subject through in silico modeling, the computer system comprising a memory and a processor, the memory storing a plurality of processor executable instructions executable by the processor (e.g., see Abstract, Fig. 1), the plurality of processor executable instructions comprising:
instructions for identifying one or more first conditions associated with a subject, and a plurality of contacts associated with the subject, in a data repository comprising a plurality of treatment information units associated with the subject (e.g., see [0102], [0118], [0121]-[0123] wherein patient diagnosis and/or treatment recommendations are determined for a patient and communicated to the patients, their providers, and their caregivers);
instructions for discovering a first subset of decision rules from among a plurality of decision rules through a modeling procedure that aligns a first condition in the one or more first conditions against the plurality of decision rules, wherein each decision rule in the first subset of decision rules has a corresponding triggering condition, and the first subset of decision rules models a response to the first condition at a first entity (e.g., see [0141]-[0145] wherein treatment options out of a plurality of treatment options are determined based on the collected patient information);
instructions for activating a first decision rule in the first subset of decision rules whose corresponding triggering condition arises in the data repository (e.g., see [0141]-[0145], [0177]-[0182], [0206]-[0212] wherein one or more treatment paths of a plurality of treatment paths are identified based on patient information);
instructions for identifying a first notification rule, from a plurality of notification rules stored in a notification rule repository, that is actionable upon the activating of the first decision rule, wherein each respective notification rule in the plurality of notification rules specifies a different set of endpoints in a plurality of sets of endpoints (e.g., see [0102], [0118], [0214], [0223] wherein the patient, their provider, their caregivers, or other contacts are notified of changes, contacted automatically in response to abnormal results, and/or in accordance with a specified frequency/threshold); and
instructions for communicating a first notification to a first notification path in accordance with the first notification rule, using a computer network, wherein the first notification path consists of a first subset of the plurality of contacts selected in accordance with a set of endpoints, in the plurality of sets of endpoints, specified by the first notification rule (e.g., see [0102], [0118], [0214], [0223] wherein the patient, their provider, their caregivers, or other contacts are notified of changes or contacted, see also [0038] teaching a computer and communications network).
Said teaches various notification rules in which a provider is sent notifications, and, therefore, teaches the claimed limitation. Nonetheless, for the purposes of compact prosecution and in the same field of endeavor of managing healthcare workflows, Takahashi further teaches wherein each respective notification rule in the plurality of notification rules specifies a different set of endpoints in a plurality of sets of endpoints (e.g., see [0044], [0046], [0061]-[0066] wherein each notification is associated with a determined at least one notification destination); the plurality of contacts selected in accordance with a set of endpoints, the plurality of sets of endpoints, specified by the first notification rule (e.g., see [0044], [0046], [0061]-[0066] wherein various staff members are the one or more notification destinations and the notification is sent to the determined staff member in accordance with the determined notification destination).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Said in view of Takahashi before the effective filing date of the application with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to quickly provide appropriate medical treatment, thereby improving patient healthcare management (e.g., see [0004] of Takahashi).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Said further teaches wherein the plurality of instructions further comprises instructions for updating the data repository using multimodal treatment data for the subject (e.g., see Fig. 5, [0132], [0144] wherein the treatment options are saved to a data storage).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Said further teaches wherein the one or more first conditions comprises a first diagnosis associated with the subject (e.g., see Figs. 3, 4, [0122], [0170] wherein the patient information includes a diagnosis of the patient).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Said further teaches wherein the plurality of contacts associated with the subject comprises a third party sponsoring a clinical trial or a plurality of caregivers that treat the subject at a first institution (e.g., see [0102], [0118], [0196], [0214], [0223] wherein the contacts include the patient, their provider, their caregivers, medical institutions, clinical trials, or other contacts).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Said further teaches wherein the plurality of contacts associated with the subject includes the subject (e.g., see [0118] wherein the information and updated information are provided to the patient).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Said further teaches wherein the corresponding triggering condition for the first decision rule arises in the data repository when the data repository is missing a diagnostic test result specified by the first decision rule, or the data repository includes a diagnostic test result that satisfies a diagnostic test result threshold (e.g., see [0102] wherein a provider can be notified based on abnormal test results (i.e., diagnostic test result threshold)).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Said further teaches wherein the plurality of instructions further comprises instructions for updating the data repository using multimodal treatment data for the subject, and the corresponding triggering condition for the first decision rule comprises an absence of an evaluation of the subject in the multimodal treatment data for the subject during a predetermined time period associated with the first decision rule (e.g., see Fig. 10D, 10E teaching during the course of evaluation (i.e., predetermined time period associated with decision rule), it is determined whether or not the patient should receive testing for a condition and/or whether or not the patient has received testing. See also [0091], [0132] wherein patient’s information is updated/saved).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Said further teaches wherein the corresponding triggering condition for the first decision rule comprises an indication in the data repository that the subject has been prescribed a combination of medications having a documented adverse pharmacodynamic or pharmacokinetic interaction with each other, an absence of an indication in the data repository of a clinical trial for which the subject is currently eligible, or an absence of a therapy in the data repository (e.g., see Figs. 6, 7, [0132], [0201] wherein the patient information can include medication information, including whether there is documented adverse interactions with each other and whether the patient is eligible for a new clinical trial or treatment).
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Said further teaches wherein the corresponding triggering condition for the first decision rule arises in the data repository when; the data repository is missing a medical procedure, or the data repository includes a medical procedure result that specifies the subject has a predetermined condition specified by the corresponding triggering condition of the first decision rule (e.g., see Figs. 5, 9, 10, [0185] wherein the patient data can indicate whether or not a testing/treatment has been performed and can further recommend the testing/treatment based upon a condition determination).
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Said further teaches wherein the response to the first condition at the first entity is a first institution based care plan at an institution and the first notification path is an identity of a first contact in the plurality of contacts having a first specialty associated with activation of the first decision rule (e.g., see [0115], [0155], [0203] wherein a patient is matched to a clinical trial and can communicate with the trial coordinator).
As to claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Said further teaches wherein the response to the first condition at the first entity is a first institution based care plan at an institution and the first notification path is an identity of a primary caregiver for the subject, in the plurality of contacts associated with the subject, at the institution, or wherein the response to the first condition at the first entity is a first institution based care plan at an institution and the first notification path is an identity of a caregiver for the subject, in the plurality of contacts associated with the subject, that most recently attended to the subject at the institution, or wherein the response to the first condition at the first entity is a first institution based care plan at an institution and the first notification path is an identity of a caregiver for the subject, in the plurality of contacts associated with the subject, that most frequently attends to the subject at the institution (e.g., see [0085] wherein the contact can include a physician, such as a primary care physician).
As to claim 20, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Said further teaches wherein the response to the first condition at the first entity is a first institution based care plan at an institution and the first notification path is an identity of a caregiver for the subject, in the plurality of contacts associated with the subject, that has been assigned responsibility for administering an upcoming medical procedure in accordance with the first institution based care plan (e.g., see [0115], [0155], [0203] wherein a patient is matched to a clinical trial and can communicate with the trial coordinator).
As to claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Said further teaches wherein the first notification rule is associated with a first type of caregiver and wherein: when the plurality of contacts associated with the subject includes a first caregiver of the first type, the first notification path includes the first caregiver of the first type, and when the plurality of contacts associated with the subject does not include a first caregiver of the first type, the first notification path includes a primary caregiver, in the plurality of contacts associated with the subject, associated with the subject (e.g., see [0102], [0118], [0196], [0214], [0223] wherein notifications and/or updates can be provided to contacts including the patient, their provider, their caregivers, medical institutions, clinical trials, or other contacts. It is noted that the “types” of contact/caregiver is interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive information as they are not functionally required in the claimed system. See MPEP 2111.05. The function described in the claimed system would be performed the same regardless of whether the claimed caregiver type existed).
As to claim 24, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Said further teaches wherein the plurality of decision rules includes a plurality of subsets of decision rules, wherein each respective subset of decision rules in the plurality of subsets of decision rules models a respective institution based care plan for a diagnosis in a plurality of diagnoses (e.g., see [0125], [0194]-[0196] wherein each clinical trial has specific attributes for inclusion or exclusion into the trial).
As to claim 26, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Said further teaches wherein the response to the first condition at the first entity is a first institution based care plan at an institution and wherein the first subset of decision rules model the first institution based care plan for a first diagnosis indicated by the activating of the first decision rule as a first decision tree (e.g., see [0125], [0194]-[0196] wherein a clinical trial is recommended to a patient based on their information and each clinical trial has specific attributes for inclusion or exclusion into the trial).
As to claim 27, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Said further teaches wherein the plurality of decisions rules is in the form of a directed graph comprising a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges, each respective node in the plurality of nodes is a decision rule in the plurality of decision rules, each edge in the plurality of edges links a respective first node in the plurality of nodes with at least one other respective second node in the plurality of nodes and specifies what conditions are to be satisfied by the data in the data repository in order to include the decision rule of the at least one other respective second node in the first subset of decision rules when the decision rule of the first respective node is included in the first subset of decision rules, and the instructions for discovering the first subset of decision rules from among the plurality of decision rules through a modeling procedure that aligns a first condition in the one or more first conditions against the plurality of decision rules comprises traversing the directed graph beginning at an initial node in the directed graph (e.g., see Figs. 5, 9, 10, [0184]-[0187] teaching a decision tree/workflow wherein a plurality of options (i.e., edges) are possible and presented based on meeting previous conditions, wherein each option/condition and treatment path are interpreted as edges and nodes, respectively).
As to claim 28, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Said further teaches wherein the plurality of decisions rules is in the form of a decision tree comprising a plurality of decisions, each respective decision in the plurality of decisions dictates whether or not to include a decision rule in the plurality of decision rules in the first subset of decision rules based on satisfying or failing to satisfy one or more conditions using data in the data repository, and the instruction for discovering the first subset of decision rules from among the plurality of decision rules through a modeling procedure that aligns a first condition in the one or more first conditions against the plurality of decision rules comprises traversing the decision tree beginning at an initial decision in the decision tree (e.g., see Figs. 5, 9, 10, [0189]-[0192] teaching a decision tree/workflow wherein a plurality of options (i.e., edges) are possible and presented based on whether or not the previous condition was met, wherein each option/condition and treatment path are interpreted as edges and nodes, respectively).
Claim(s) 16 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Said and Takahashi, as applied above, and in further view of Yarnell et al. (USPPN: 2016/0055299; hereinafter Yarnell).
As to claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. While Said teaches providing notifications to a plurality of contacts, Said fails to teach communicating a second notification to a second contact having the first specialty when the first contact fails to respond to the first notification.
However, in the same field of endeavor of patient healthcare management, Yarnell teaches communicating a second notification to a second contact having the first specialty when the first contact fails to respond to the first notification (e.g., see [0038] wherein a second care giver is provided a request notification when the request notification is not responded to by a first contact). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Said in view of Yarnell with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification to ensure timely responses to patient requests, thereby improving patient healthcare (e.g., see [0004] of Yarnell).
As to claim 23, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Said further teaches instructions for firing a second decision rule in the first subset of decision rules whose corresponding triggering condition arises in the data repository (e.g., see Figs. 5, 9, 10, [0184]-[0187] teaching a decision tree/workflow wherein a plurality of options (i.e., edges) are possible and presented based on meeting previous conditions).
While Said teaches providing notifications to a plurality of contacts, Said fails to teach identifying a second notification rule in the notification rule repository that is actionable upon the firing of the second decision rule, wherein the second notification rule is a hierarchical notification rule that is dependent upon the firing of the first decision rule; and communicating a second notification to a second notification path specified by the second notification rule, wherein the second notification path consists of a second subset of the plurality of contacts.
However, in the same field of endeavor of patient healthcare management, Yarnell teaches identifying a second notification rule in the notification rule repository that is actionable upon the firing of the second decision rule, wherein the second notification rule is a hierarchical notification rule that is dependent upon the firing of the first decision rule; and communicating a second notification to a second notification path specified by the second notification rule, wherein the second notification path consists of a second subset of the plurality of contacts (e.g., see [0038] wherein a second care giver is provided a request notification when the request notification is not responded to by a first contact). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Said in view of Yarnell with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification to ensure timely responses to patient requests, thereby improving patient healthcare (e.g., see [0004] of Yarnell).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Said and Takahashi, as applied above, and in further view of Karra et al. (USPPN: 2020/0185065; hereinafter Karra).
As to claim 22, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Said further teaches wherein the plurality of processor executable instructions further comprises: instructions for firing a second decision rule in the first subset of decision rules whose corresponding triggering condition arises in the data repository (e.g., see Figs. 5, 9, 10, [0184]-[0187] teaching a decision tree/workflow wherein a plurality of options (i.e., edges) are possible and presented based on meeting previous conditions).
Said fails to teach suppressing a notification associated with the second decision rule when the first decision rule is fired.
However, in the same field of endeavor of patient healthcare management, Karra teaches suppressing a notification associated with the second decision rule when the first decision rule is fired (e.g., see [0094], [0103] wherein an alert can be suppressed upon a determination of a first rule). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Said in view of Karra with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to prevent alert fatigue and improve patient healthcare (e.g., see [0002] of Karra).
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STELLA HIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-5891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9-5PM.
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, Peter Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/STELLA HIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights