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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendments, claims 1, 3-12, and 21-22 have overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
In light of the amendments, claims 13-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 10/27/2025, the following has occurred: claims 1, 3, and 13-14 have been amended; claims 5-12 and 15-20 remain unchanged; and claims 21-22 have been added.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-22 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 08/17/2023
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Claim 1 was amended to overcome the previous 101 rejection as it now includes language which reflects an improvement to a device. Claims 3, 5-12, and 21-22 rely on claim 1 and therefore overcome the previous 101 rejections as well.
Applicant did not argue with respect to claims 13-20 and these claims remain rejected.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues with respect to the newly amended claims. These amendments are accompanied with updated 103 rejections.
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 13-20 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 13-20 are drawn to a system, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 13-20 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 13 recites a system comprising:
a) a server comprising a1) memory and a2) one or more processors, wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed, cause the server to:
1) receive and store separate packages of data from a fleet of medical devices, wherein the separate packages of data are respectively associated with different patients, wherein the packages of data each indicate a health event detected by one of the medical devices, wherein the packages of data each include data about the health event,
2) automatically determine a subset of the patients that experiences the most health events among the different patients,
3) provide access to the packages of data via b) an online platform,
4) cause an indicator to be displayed on c) a user interface showing which of the patients is associated with the subset, and
5) reassess at least some of the subset of patients based on separate packages of data and detected cardiac events from reprogrammed medical devices.
Claim 13 recites, in part, performing the steps of 2) automatically determine a subset of the patients that experiences the most health events among the different patients, 3) provide access to the packages of data via a platform, 4) cause an indicator to be displayed on an interface (when a pen and paper) showing which of the patients is associated with the subset, and 5) reassess at least some of the subset of patients based on separate packages of data and detected cardiac events from reprogrammed medical devices. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how people can determine who experiences the most health events.
Depending claims 14-20 include all of the limitations of claim 13, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 14-20 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 14-20 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 13 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) a server comprising a1) memory and a2) one or more processors, wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed, cause the server to perform operations, b) an online platform, c) a user interface, and d) a remote computer (in claim 15) to perform the claimed steps.
These claims also include the additional element step of 1) receive and store separate packages of data from a fleet of medical devices, wherein the separate packages of data are respectively associated with different patients, wherein the packages of data each indicate a health event detected by one of the medical devices, wherein the packages of data each include data about the health event.
The a) server comprising a1) memory and a2) one or more processors, wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed, cause the server to perform operations, b) online platform, c) user interface, and d) remote computer in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0075] where there are general-purpose computing devices, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, the additional element step of 1) receive and store separate packages of data from a fleet of medical devices, wherein the separate packages of data are respectively associated with different patients, wherein the packages of data each indicate a health event detected by one of the medical devices, wherein the packages of data each include data about the health event adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. 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 and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 2A (Prong Two): NO).
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 elements of using a) a server comprising a1) memory and a2) one or more processors, wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed, cause the server to perform operations, b) an online platform, c) a user interface, and d) a remote computer (in claim 15) to perform the claimed steps and the additional element step of 1) receive and store separate packages of data from a fleet of medical devices, wherein the separate packages of data are respectively associated with different patients, wherein the packages of data each indicate a health event detected by one of the medical devices, wherein the packages of data each include data about the health event amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity) and mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional element step of 1) receive and store separate packages of data from a fleet of medical devices, wherein the separate packages of data are respectively associated with different patients, wherein the packages of data each indicate a health event detected by one of the medical devices, wherein the packages of data each include data about the health event adds insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives packages of data, and transmits the data to a server over a network, for example the Internet.
Furthermore, the current invention displays an indicator utilizing a) one or more servers, b) a user interface, and c) a remote computer, thus these computing components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 13-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 12-15, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0065889 to Page in view of U.S. 20150350600 to Beinlich et al. further in view of U.S. 2018/0192894 to An et al.
As per claim 1, Page teaches a method comprising:
--detecting, using medical devices, respective health events based on comparisons of respective physiological data collected by the medical devices to one or more respective programmed parameters of the medical devices; (see: 2702 of FIG. 27 and paragraph [0192] where there is reception of medical device data from a plurality of medical devices. Also see: paragraph [0194] where the monitored data includes parameters. Also see: paragraphs [0020] and [0071] where there is event detection. There is detection of events here based on the received information and this detection is being done based on a comparison of data with at least a threshold in order to determine this)
--storing, by one or more servers, separate packages of data received from the medical devices, wherein the separate packages of data are respectively associated with different patients, (see: 2702 of FIG. 27 and paragraph [0192] where there is reception of medical device data from a plurality of medical devices. This data is being ingested and stored by the edge device. Also see: paragraph [0085] where the edge device is implemented using a server) wherein the packages of data indicate one or more of the health events detected by one of the medical devices, wherein the packages of data each include data about the health events; (see: paragraph [0038] where there are events data which would be the data which is stored) and
--providing access to the packages of data via a user interface (see: paragraph [0083] where there is controlled access to EMR data of patients. Also see: paragraph [0086] where there is display on a multi-patient interface of patient data).
Page may not further, specifically teach:
1) --automatically determining a subset of the patients that experiences the most health events among the different patients;
2) --displaying an indicator on the user interface showing which of the patients is associated with the subset; and
3) --reprogramming at least one of the medical devices associated with the subset, wherein the reprogramming comprises adjusting a threshold of the one or more programmed parameters to a reprogrammed threshold, wherein the reprogrammed threshold is less sensitive than the threshold for detecting cardiac events.
Beinlich et al. teaches:
1) --automatically determining a subset of the patients that experiences the most health events among the different patients; (see: FIG. 13 and paragraph [0043] where there is an automatic determination of patient who experience the most health events via graphic of patient data for events. The patients who are further right and higher are determined to have experienced the most events) and
2) --displaying an indicator on the user interface showing which of the patients is associated with the subset (see: FIG. 13 and paragraph [0043] where there is display of an indicator (the dots on the graph) of the subset of patient which have the most events).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 1) automatically determine a subset of the patients that experiences the most health events among the different patients and 2) display an indicator on the user interface showing which of the patients is associated with the subset as taught by Beinlich et al. in the method as taught by Page with the motivation(s) of improving both user experience and outcome and quality of user experiences provided (see: paragraph [0024] of Beinlich et al.).
An et al. teaches:
3) --reprogramming at least one of the medical devices associated with the subset, (see: paragraph [0100] where there is such a reprogramming) wherein the reprogramming comprises adjusting a threshold of the one or more programmed parameters to a reprogrammed threshold, (see: paragraph [0049] where there is adjusting of threshold values automatically) wherein the reprogrammed threshold is less sensitive than the threshold for detecting cardiac events (see: FIGS. 20 and 27 and paragraph [0095] where there is reprogramming of a sensitivity threshold to make the device less sensitive).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 3) reprogram at least one of the medical devices associated with the subset, wherein the reprogramming comprises adjusting a threshold of the one or more programmed parameters to a reprogrammed threshold, wherein the reprogrammed threshold is less sensitive than the threshold for detecting cardiac events as taught by An et al. in the method as taught by Page and Beinlich et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of reducing the number of false indications and improving accuracy (see: paragraph [0142] of An et al.).
As per claim 2, Page, Beinlich et al., and An et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Page further teaches:
--detecting, using the medical devices, the health events each based on a comparison of respective physiological data collected by the medical devices to one or more respective programmed parameters of the medical devices (see: paragraph [0020] where there is detection of health events. Also see: paragraph [0044] where previous cases are used in order to help detect these health events).
As per claim 11, Page, Beinlich et al., and An et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. An et al. further teaches wherein the medical devices are implantable cardiac monitors (see: paragraphs [0003] and [0004] where there is such a device).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 12, Page, Beinlich et al., and An et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Beinlich et al. further teaches wherein the indicator is an icon representing a high-volume patient (see: FIG. 13 where there is a display of an indicator that a patient is a high-volume patient in the form of a patient being shown in the top right of the graph).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 13, Page teaches a system comprising:
--a server comprising memory and one or more processors, (see: paragraph [0085] where the edge device is implemented using a server. The edge device here has a memory and processor) wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed, cause the server to:
--receive and store separate packages of data from a fleet of medical devices, wherein the separate packages of data are respectively associated with different patients, (see: 2702 of FIG. 27 and paragraph [0192] where there is reception of medical device data from a plurality of medical devices. This data is being ingested and stored by the edge device) wherein the packages of data each indicate a health event detected by one of the medical devices, wherein the packages of data each include data about the health event, (see: paragraph [0038] where there are events data which would be the data which is stored) and
--provide access to the packages of data via an online platform (see: paragraph [0083] where there is controlled access to EMR data of patients. Also see: paragraph [0086] where there is display on a multi-patient interface of patient data).
Page may not further, specifically teach:
1) --automatically determine a subset of the patients that experiences the most health events among the different patients,
2) --cause an indicator to be displayed on a user interface showing which of the patients is associated with the subset, and
3) --reassess at least some of the subset of patients based on separate packages of data and detected cardiac events from reprogrammed medical devices.
Beinlich et al. teaches:
1) --automatically determine a subset of the patients that experiences the most health events among the different patients; (see: FIG. 13 and paragraph [0043] where there is an automatic determination of patient who experience the most health events via graphic of patient data for events. The patients who are further right and higher are determined to have experienced the most events) and
2) --cause an indicator to be displayed on a user interface showing which of the patients is associated with the subset (see: FIG. 13 and paragraph [0043] where there is display of an indicator (the dots on the graph) of the subset of patient which have the most events).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 1) automatically determine a subset of the patients that experiences the most health events among the different patients and 2) cause an indicator to be displayed on a user interface showing which of the patients is associated with the subset as taught by Beinlich et al. in the system as taught by Page with the motivation(s) of improving both user experience and outcome and quality of user experiences provided (see: paragraph [0024] of Beinlich et al.).
An et al. teaches:
3) --reassess at least some of the subset of patients based on separate packages of data and detected cardiac events from reprogrammed medical devices (see: paragraph [0049] where there is an assessment of events using thresholds and the data).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 3) reassess at least some of the subset of patients based on separate packages of data and detected cardiac events from reprogrammed medical devices as taught by An et al. in the method as taught by Page and Beinlich et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of reducing the number of false indications and improving accuracy (see: paragraph [0142] of An et al.).
As per claim 14, Page, Beinlich et al., and An et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 13, see discussion of claim 13. Page further teaches:
--the fleet of medical devices, wherein the medical devices are implantable medical devices that are programmed to detect the health events based on a comparison of respective physiological data collected by the medical devices to one or more respective programmed parameters of the medical devices, (see: paragraph [0020] where there is detection of health events. Also see: paragraph [0044] where previous cases are used in order to help detect these health events).
An et al. further teaches wherein the medical devices associated with the at least some of the subset of patient are reprogrammed (see: paragraph [0100] where there is such a reprogramming).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 15, Page, Beinlich et al., and An et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 13, see discussion of claim 13. Page further teaches:
--a remote computer including a display that is arranged to display the user interface (see: paragraph [0058] where there is a remote location with a remote device for a care provider).
As per claim 21, Page, Beinlich et al., and An et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 21, see discussion of claim 21. Page further teaches:
--reassessing the subset following the reprogramming of the at least one of the medical devices (see: paragraph [0049] where there is an assessment of events using thresholds and the data).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 22, Page, Beinlich et al., and An et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Page further teaches wherein the reassessing comprises redetermining the subset of patients based on a comparison of the respective physiological data to the one or more reprogrammed thresholds (see: paragraph [0049] where there is such a comparison between data and a threshold).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0065889 to Page in view of U.S. 20150350600 to Beinlich et al. further in view of U.S. 2018/0192894 to An et al. as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. 2020/0176122 to Teplitzky et al.
As per claim 3, Page, Beinlich et al., and An et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically wherein the packages of data include strips of the respective physiological data associated with the health events.
Teplitzky et al. teaches:
--wherein the packages of data include strips of the respective physiological data associated with the health events (see: paragraph [0073] where there are data strips of event 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 substitute wherein the packages of data include strips of the respective physiological data associated with the health events as taught by Teplitzky et al. for the data packages as disclosed by Page, Beinlich et al., and An et al. in combination since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, the combination of Page, Beinlich et al., and An et al. teaches of using data thus one could replace that data with data strips and obtain predictable results of using and displaying data. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Claims 5-7, 10, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0065889 to Page in view of U.S. 20150350600 to Beinlich et al. further in view of U.S. 2018/0192894 to An et al. as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. 2011/0208012 to Gerber et al.
As per claim 5, Page, Beinlich et al., and An et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the automatically determining is based on one or more thresholds.
Gerber et al. teaches:
--wherein the automatically determining is based on one or more thresholds (see: paragraph [0112] where there is a determination automatically using a threshold).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the automatically determining is based on one or more thresholds as taught by Gerber et al. in the method as taught by Page, Beinlich et al., and An et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of providing efficacious therapy to a patient (see: paragraph [0112] of Gerber et al.).
As per claim 6, Page, Beinlich et al., An et al., and Gerber et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 5, see discussion of claim 5. Gerber et al. further teaches wherein the one or more thresholds includes a minimum number of detected health events (see: paragraphs [0112] and [0115] where the threshold comparison and a minimum number of events used as a threshold).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 7, Page, Beinlich et al., An et al., and Gerber et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 5, see discussion of claim 5. Gerber et al. further teaches wherein the one or more thresholds includes an average number of health events per day (see: paragraph [0112] where an average number of events per day is used as a threshold).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 10, Page, Beinlich et al., An et al., and Gerber et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 5, see discussion of claim 5. Gerber et al. further teaches wherein the one or more thresholds includes a number of health events over a set time period (see: paragraph [0112] where there are a number of events over a set period of time (occurred during the therapy program or over a sample period of time)).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 16, Page, Beinlich et al., and An et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 13, see discussion of claim 13. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the automatically determining is based on one or more thresholds.
Gerber et al. teaches:
--wherein the automatically determining is based on one or more thresholds (see: paragraph [0112] where there is a determination automatically using a threshold).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the automatically determining is based on one or more thresholds as taught by Gerber et al. in the system as taught by Page, Beinlich et al., and An et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of providing efficacious therapy to a patient (see: paragraph [0112] of Gerber et al.).
As per claim 17, Page, Beinlich et al., An et al., and Gerber et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 16, see discussion of claim 16. Gerber et al. further teaches wherein the one or more thresholds includes a minimum number of detected health events (see: paragraphs [0112] and [0115] where the threshold comparison and a minimum number of events used as a threshold).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 16, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 18, Page, Beinlich et al., An et al., and Gerber et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 16, see discussion of claim 16. Gerber et al. further teaches wherein the one or more thresholds includes an average number of health events per day (see: paragraph [0112] where an average number of events per day is used as a threshold).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 16, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 20, Page, Beinlich et al., An et al., and Gerber et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 16, see discussion of claim 16. Gerber et al. further teaches wherein the one or more thresholds includes a number of health events over a set time period (see: paragraph [0112] where there are a number of events over a set period of time (occurred during the therapy program or over a sample period of time)).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 16, and incorporated herein.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable U.S. 2021/0065889 to Page in view of U.S. 20150350600 to Beinlich et al. further in view of U.S. 2018/0192894 to An et al. further in view of U.S. 2011/0208012 to Gerber et al. as applied to claim 5, and further in view of U.S. 2020/0381099 to Crowley et al.
As per claim 8, Page, Beinlich et al., An et al., and Gerber et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 5, see discussion of claim 5. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the one or more thresholds includes a percentage of days with at least one health event.
Crowley et al. teaches:
--wherein the one or more thresholds includes a percentage of days with at least one health event (see: paragraph [0388] where this metric exists. A metric being a threshold was already taught in the base references).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the one or more thresholds includes a percentage of days with at least one health event as taught by Crowley et al. in the method as taught by Page, Beinlich et al., An et al., and Gerber et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of managing health information (see: paragraph [0003] of Crowley et al.).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0065889 to Page in view of U.S. 20150350600 to Beinlich et al. further in view of U.S. 2018/0192894 to An et al. further in view of U.S. 2011/0208012 to Gerber et al. as applied to claims 5 and 16, and further in view of U.S. 2021/0082582 to Barrett et al.
As per claim 9, Page, Beinlich et al., An et al., and Gerber et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 5, see discussion of claim 5. The combination may not further, specifical teach wherein the one or more thresholds includes a percentage of total episodes within a given patient population.
Barrett et al. teaches:
--wherein the one or more thresholds includes a percentage of total episodes within a given patient population (see: paragraph [0134] where there is such a threshold).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute wherein the one or more thresholds includes a percentage of total episodes within a given patient population as taught by Barrett et al. for the threshold as disclosed by Page, Beinlich et al., An et al., and Gerber et al. in combination since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, the combination of Page, Beinlich et al., An et al., and Gerber et al. already teaches of using a threshold so it would be obvious to replace the thresholds as predictable results of using a threshold in order to determine a grouping of patients would be produced. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
As per claim 19, Page, Beinlich et al., An et al., and Gerber et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 16, see discussion of claim 16. The combination may not further, specifical teach wherein the one or more thresholds includes a percentage of total episodes within a given patient population.
Barrett et al. teaches:
--wherein the one or more thresholds includes a percentage of total episodes within a given patient population (see: paragraph [0134] where there is such a threshold).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute wherein the one or more thresholds includes a percentage of total episodes within a given patient population as taught by Barrett et al. for the threshold as disclosed by Page, Beinlich et al., An et al., and Gerber et al. in combination since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, the combination of Page, Beinlich et al., An et al., and Gerber et al. already teaches of using a threshold so it would be obvious to replace the thresholds as predictable results of using a threshold in order to determine a grouping of patients would be produced. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
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 Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684