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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 15 August 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims 1-20 fall within one or more statutory categories. Claims 1-8 fall within the category of a process. Claims 9-15 fall within the category of a manufacture. Claims 16-20 fall within the category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites:
receiving a request from … a particular patient to access a web-based portal that hosts a plurality of available computer applications that are available for a plurality of patients, wherein the request includes unique credentials for the particular patient;
responsive to the request, accessing a clinical record that is associated with the particular patient based on the unique credentials;
determining a set of relevant computer applications from the plurality of available computer applications that are relevant to the particular patient, wherein a relevant computer application is determined based on being selected for presentation in accordance with information contained in the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient;
obtaining a link for each application in the set of relevant computer applications, wherein a link points to the corresponding computer application within the web-based portal;
providing, … and based on the unique credentials, access to the web-based portal in a graphical user interface displayed at the device associated with the particular patient.
Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “selecting relevant patient apps,” which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity. “Selecting relevant apps” is considered to be a method of organizing human activity because it is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language includes the interaction between a healthcare provider and a patient, when the provider selects apps for the patient to use.
Alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims include a mental process because they recite concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), i.e. the selecting of apps based on relevancy.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s):
a device associated with a particular patient;
network communications;
generating a customizable dashboard, on the graphical user interface, that includes a plurality of selectable tabs that are generated based on at least patient information identified within the clinical record associated with the particular patient;
wherein the plurality of selectable tabs include an app tab that is configured to contain the links to the set of relevant computer applications relevant to the particular patient; and
in response to the app tab being selected within the graphical user interface of the web-based portal: displaying in the graphical user interface of the web-based portal at the device associated with the particular patient, a viewing area customized to include a selectable icon for each of the links to the set of relevant computer applications, wherein upon selection of a selectable icon, a corresponding relevant computer application is executed.
The additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application. These additional elements amount to merely reciting the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, communicating over a network amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). 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. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, considered individually or in combination, 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(s), individually and in combination, amount to merely reciting the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, communicating over a network amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Also, communicating over a networks is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d); see part II, example i. “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 2 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the customizable dashboard and the app tab are customized for the particular patient by providing the selectable icons for the links to the set of relevant computer applications determined to be relevant to the patient information identified in the clinical record of the particular patient.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 2 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
determining the set of relevant computer applications is relevant is based, at least in part, upon one or more computer applications being specified as relevant within the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 3 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 4 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
determining that the set of relevant computer applications is relevant is based, at least in part, upon a clinical diagnosis, a medication, a symptom, or a family history stored in the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 4 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the plurality of available computer applications include one or more applications that comply with Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources standard.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 5 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
a particular healthcare provider is a host of the web-based portal.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 6 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 7 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the link is generated within the customizable dashboard.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 7 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 8 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the customizable dashboard is accessible via a cloud network.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 8 is ineligible.
Claims 9-10 are parallel in nature to claims 1-2. Accordingly claims 9-10 are rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
Dependent claim 11 recites the media of claim 9, wherein:
receiving the request comprises receiving the request through the web-based portal via a cloud-based Unified Medical Record Network.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 11 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 12 recites the media of claim 9, wherein:
the set of relevant computer applications from the plurality of available computer applications is determined to be relevant to the particular patient prior to providing access to the web-based portal in the graphical user interface at the device associated with the particular patient.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 12 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 13 recites the media of claim 9, wherein:
the set of relevant computer applications from the plurality of available computer applications is determined to be relevant to the particular patient based on at least one characteristic documented in the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient, wherein the at least one characteristic is a clinical diagnosis, a condition, a medication, a symptom, or a family history documented in the clinical record.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 13 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 14 recites the media of claim 9, wherein:
each of the plurality of available computer applications include one or more applications that comply with or is based upon Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 14 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 15 recites the media of claim 9, wherein:
the executable instructions for determining which of the set of relevant computer applications is relevant is based, at least in part, upon one or more computer applications being specified as relevant within the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 15 is considered to be ineligible.
Independent claim 16 recites a system that performs the method of claim 1. Claim 16 further recites the following additional elements:
a healthcare app host implemented using one or more processing units configured to select a plurality of available computer applications that are available for a plurality of patients for a plurality of healthcare providers;
a web-based portal that hosts the plurality of available computer applications available for the plurality of patients, wherein the plurality of available computer applications are selected by the healthcare app host; and
a cloud-based server configured to provide network access to the web-based portal.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 17 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 17 recites the system of claim 16, wherein:
the system is configured to determine the set of relevant computer applications from the plurality of available computer applications to be relevant to the particular patient based on at least one characteristic documented in the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient, wherein the at least one characteristic is a clinical diagnosis, a condition, a medication, a symptom, or a family history documented in the clinical record.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 17 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 18 recites the system of claim 16, wherein:
each of the plurality of available computer applications include one or more applications that are based upon Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 18 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 19 recites the system of claim 16, wherein:
the system is configured to access the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient and determine whether the particular patient is associated with at least one particular characteristic documented in the clinical record.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 19 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 20 recites the system of claim 16, wherein:
the system is configured to determine whether a first computer application from the plurality of available computer applications is relevant to the particular patient based, at least in part, upon the first computer application being specified as relevant within the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 20 is considered to be ineligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Repko (U.S. 2014/0172450), hereinafter “Repko,” in view of Morris et al. (U.S. 2017/0286614), hereinafter “Morris.”
Regarding Claim 1, Repko discloses a method performed by a computing system, the method comprising:
receiving a request from a device associated with a particular patient to access a web-based portal that hosts a plurality of available computer applications that are available for a plurality of patients (See Repko [0047] patient can access system via a web portal. [0015] this includes data elements for tracking various symptoms/activities related to patient’s disease. These data elements available on the website or mobile application are understood to meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “computer application.”), wherein the request includes unique credentials for the particular patient (See Repko [0024] system can require the user set up a user name and password, associated with their patient ID, in order to gain access to the system. This is an example of unique credentials.);
responsive to the request, accessing a clinical record that is associated with the particular patient based on the unique credentials (See Repko Fig. 4 and [0043] once the patient has an account on the system (including the creation of a username and password associated with their Patient ID as performed in [0024]) the system creates and provides access to a Patient Account Record that includes patient health information. [0023] the system can be implemented as an integrated with and Electronic Medical Record. Therefore, the system provides access to the clinical record of the patient associated with their unique credentials.);
determining a set of relevant computer applications from the plurality of available computer applications that are relevant to the particular patient (See Repko [0013] the system helps a physician tailor a patient’s interface with tools for tracking particular data elements related to the patient’s disease.), wherein a relevant computer application is determined based on being selected for presentation in accordance with information contained in the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0013] the system helps a physician tailor a patient’s interface with tools for tracking particular data elements related to the patient’s disease. This may be integrated with or used in conjunction with personal health record (PHR) or electronic health record (EHR) information.);
providing, via network communications (See Repko [0014] the various devices of the system are connected via a network and use network communication.) and based on the unique credentials (See Repko [0024] system can require the user set up a user name and password, associated with their patient ID, in order to gain access to the system. This is an example of unique credentials.), access to the web-based portal in a graphical user interface displayed at the device associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0047] patient can access system via a web portal. [0015] this includes data elements for tracking various symptoms/activities related to patient’s disease. These data elements available on the website or mobile application are understood to meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “computer application.”);
generating a customizable dashboard, on the graphical user interface (See Repko [0015] system allows healthcare provider to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient.), … generated based on at least patient information identified within the clinical record associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0013] the system helps a physician tailor a patient’s interface with tools for tracking particular data elements related to the patient’s disease. This may be integrated with or used in conjunction with personal health record (PHR) or electronic health record (EHR) information.);
displaying in the graphical user interface of the web-based portal at the device associated with the particular patient, a viewing area (See Repko [0047] patient can access system via a web portal. [0015] this includes data elements for tracking various symptoms/activities related to patient’s disease. Also, from [0015] “system allows healthcare provider 130 to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient 120.”).
Repko does not disclose:
obtaining a link for each application in the set of relevant computer applications, wherein a link points to the corresponding computer application within the web-based portal;
[the dashboard] includes a plurality of selectable tabs;
wherein the plurality of selectable tabs include an app tab that is configured to contain the links to the set of relevant computer applications relevant to the particular patient; and
in response to the app tab being selected within the graphical user interface of the web-based portal:
[the graphical user interface is] customized to include a selectable icon for each of the links to the set of relevant computer applications, wherein upon selection of a selectable icon, a corresponding relevant computer application is executed.
Morris teaches:
obtaining a link for each application in the set of relevant computer applications, wherein a link points to the corresponding computer application within the web-based portal (See Morris [0051] system can provide links for accessing apps between devices. See also [0047].);
[the dashboard] includes a plurality of selectable tabs (See Morris [0050] system can receive input in the form of clickable tabs or icons.);
wherein the plurality of selectable tabs include an app tab that is configured to contain the links to the set of relevant computer applications relevant to the particular patient (See Morris [0050] system can receive input in the form of clickable tabs or icons. [0075] linked apps can be listed in prominent tabs.); and
in response to the app tab being selected within the graphical user interface of the web-based portal (See Morris [0050] system can receive input in the form of clickable tabs or icons.):
[the graphical user interface is] customized to include a selectable icon for each of the links to the set of relevant computer applications (See Morris [0050] system can receive input in the form of clickable tabs or icons for linking to target applications.),
wherein upon selection of a selectable icon, a corresponding relevant computer application is executed (See Morris [0050] system can receive input in the form of clickable tabs or icons. [0079] selection of a target app icon in the tab menu of the source app can be associated with the main or home screen of the target app, whereas selection of a data icon can be associated with another screen of the target app.).
The system of Morris is applicable to the disclosure of Repko as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing healthcare apps for patients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Repko to include icon and tab elements as taught by Morris. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Repko in order to address increasing challenges in secure and controlled management of patients' medical data (see Morris [0040]).
Regarding claim 2, Repko in view of Morris discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Repko further discloses a method, wherein:
the customizable dashboard (See Repko [0015] system allows healthcare provider to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient.) [is customized with access] to the set of relevant computer applications determined to be relevant to the patient information identified in the clinical record of the particular patient (See Repko [0047] patient can access system via a web portal. [0015] this includes data elements for tracking various symptoms/activities related to patient’s disease. Also, from [0015] “system allows healthcare provider 130 to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient 120.”).
Repko does not disclose:
[the dashboard] and the app tab are customized for the particular patient by providing the selectable icons for the links.
Morris teaches:
[the dashboard] and the app tab are customized for the particular patient by providing the selectable icons for the links (See Morris [0050] system can receive input in the form of clickable tabs or icons. [0075] linked apps can be listed in prominent tabs.).
The system of Morris is applicable to the disclosure of Repko as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing healthcare apps for patients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Repko to include icon and tab elements as taught by Morris. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Repko in order to address increasing challenges in secure and controlled management of patients' medical data (see Morris [0040]).
Regarding claim 3, Repko in view of Morris discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Repko further discloses a method, wherein:
determining the set of relevant computer applications is relevant is based, at least in part, upon one or more computer applications being specified as relevant within the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0015] the system allows healthcare providers to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient. [0018] the healthcare provider may select appropriate data modules for patient to track based on the patient's current health, disease state, perceived triggers, etc.).
Regarding claim 4, Repko in view of Morris discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Repko further discloses a method, wherein:
determining that the set of relevant computer applications is relevant is based, at least in part, upon a clinical diagnosis, a medication, a symptom, or a family history stored in the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0015] the system allows healthcare providers to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient. [0018] the healthcare provider may select appropriate data modules for patient to track based on the patient's current health, disease state, perceived triggers, etc.).
Regarding claim 6, Repko in view of Morris discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Repko further discloses a method, wherein:
a particular healthcare provider is a host of the web-based portal (See Repko [0023] system server can be integrated with the EMR used by the healthcare provider. This is understood to indicate a situation in which the healthcare provider is the host of the portal (because it is part of their EMR system).).
Regarding claim 7, Repko in view of Morris discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Repko does not further disclose a method, wherein:
the link is generated within the customizable dashboard.
Morris teaches:
the link is generated within the customizable dashboard (See Morris [0051] system can provide links for accessing apps between devices. See also [0047].).
The system of Morris is applicable to the disclosure of Repko as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing healthcare apps for patients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Repko to include icon and tab elements as taught by Morris. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Repko in order to address increasing challenges in secure and controlled management of patients' medical data (see Morris [0040]).
Regarding claim 8, Repko in view of Morris discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Repko does not further disclose a method, wherein:
the customizable dashboard is accessible via a cloud network.
Morris teaches:
the customizable dashboard is accessible via a cloud network (See Morris [0051] system can provide links for accessing apps between devices. [0056] mobile device can be in communication with servers in the Cloud.).
The system of Morris is applicable to the disclosure of Repko as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing healthcare apps for patients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Repko to include icon and tab elements as taught by Morris. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Repko in order to address increasing challenges in secure and controlled management of patients' medical data (see Morris [0040]).
Regarding claim 9-10, Repko in view of Morris discloses the method of claims 1-2 as discussed above. Claims 9-10 recite One or more non-transitory computer-readable media having executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to perform actions comprising a method that is substantially similar to the method of claims 1-2. Accordingly, claims 9-10 are rejected based on the same analysis.
Regarding claim 11, Repko in view of Morris discloses the media of claim 9 as discussed above. Repko does not further disclose a media, wherein:
receiving the request comprises receiving the request through the web-based portal via a cloud-based Unified Medical Record Network.
Morris teaches:
receiving the request comprises receiving the request through the web-based portal via a cloud-based Unified Medical Record Network (See Morris [0051] system can provide links for accessing apps between devices. [0056] mobile device can be in communication with servers in the Cloud.).
The system of Morris is applicable to the disclosure of Repko as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing healthcare apps for patients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Repko to include icon and tab elements as taught by Morris. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Repko in order to address increasing challenges in secure and controlled management of patients' medical data (see Morris [0040]).
Regarding claim 12, Repko in view of Morris discloses the media of claim 9 as discussed above. Repko further discloses a media, wherein:
the set of relevant computer applications from the plurality of available computer applications is determined to be relevant to the particular patient prior to providing access to the web-based portal in the graphical user interface at the device associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0024] after the healthcare provider interacts with the system (selecting the data elements for the patient to use, as described in [0018]) then the patient receives access to the system and the selected data items. Therefore, the relevance is determined prior to access.).
Regarding claim 13, Repko in view of Morris discloses the media of claim 9 as discussed above. Repko further discloses a media, wherein:
the set of relevant computer applications from the plurality of available computer applications is determined to be relevant to the particular patient based on at least one characteristic documented in the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0013] the system helps a physician tailor a patient’s interface with tools for tracking particular data elements related to the patient’s disease. This may be integrated with or used in conjunction with personal health record (PHR) or electronic health record (EHR) information.), wherein the at least one characteristic is a clinical diagnosis, a condition, a medication, a symptom, or a family history documented in the clinical record (See Repko [0015] the system allows healthcare providers to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient. [0018] the healthcare provider may select appropriate data modules for patient to track based on the patient's current health, disease state, perceived triggers, etc.).
Regarding claim 15, Repko in view of Morris discloses the media of claim 9 as discussed above. Repko further discloses a media, wherein:
the executable instructions for determining which of the set of relevant computer applications is relevant is based, at least in part, upon one or more computer applications being specified as relevant within the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0015] the system allows healthcare providers to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient. [0018] the healthcare provider may select appropriate data modules for patient to track based on the patient's current health, disease state, perceived triggers, etc.).
Regarding claim 16, Repko discloses a system, comprising:
a healthcare app host implemented using one or more processing units (See Repko [0048] The computers used as servers, clients, resources, interface components, and the like for the system will include processors in communication with memory, output interface, input interface, and network interface.) configured to select a plurality of available computer applications that are available for a plurality of patients for a plurality of healthcare providers (See Repko [0013] the system helps a physician tailor a patient’s interface with tools for tracking particular data elements related to the patient’s disease. This may be integrated with or used in conjunction with personal health record (PHR) or electronic health record (EHR) information.);
a web-based portal that hosts the plurality of available computer applications available for the plurality of patients (See Repko [0047] patient can access system via a web portal. [0015] this includes data elements for tracking various symptoms/activities related to patient’s disease. These data elements available on the website or mobile application are understood to meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “computer application.”), wherein the plurality of available computer applications are selected by the healthcare app host (See Repko [0013] the system helps a physician tailor a patient’s interface with tools for tracking particular data elements related to the patient’s disease. This may be integrated with or used in conjunction with personal health record (PHR) or electronic health record (EHR) information.); and
wherein the system is configured to:
receive a request from a device associated with a particular patient to access the web-based portal (See Repko [0047] patient can access system via a web portal. [0015] this includes data elements for tracking various symptoms/activities related to patient’s disease. These data elements available on the website or mobile application are understood to meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “computer application.”), wherein the request includes unique credentials for the particular patient (See Repko [0024] system can require the user set up a user name and password, associated with their patient ID, in order to gain access to the system. This is an example of unique credentials.);
responsive to the request, access a clinical record that is associated with the particular patient based on the unique credentials (See Repko Fig. 4 and [0043] once the patient has an account on the system (including the creation of a username and password associated with their Patient ID as performed in [0024]) the system creates and provides access to a Patient Account Record that includes patient health information. [0023] the system can be implemented as an integrated with and Electronic Medical Record. Therefore, the system provides access to the clinical record of the patient associated with their unique credentials.);
determine a set of relevant computer applications from the plurality of available computer applications that are relevant to the particular patient (See Repko [0013] the system helps a physician tailor a patient’s interface with tools for tracking particular data elements related to the patient’s disease.), wherein a relevant computer application is determined based on being selected for presentation in accordance with information contained in the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0013] the system helps a physician tailor a patient’s interface with tools for tracking particular data elements related to the patient’s disease. This may be integrated with or used in conjunction with personal health record (PHR) or electronic health record (EHR) information.);
provide, via network communications (See Repko [0014] the various devices of the system are connected via a network and use network communication.) and based on the unique credentials (See Repko [0024] system can require the user set up a user name and password, associated with their patient ID, in order to gain access to the system. This is an example of unique credentials.), access to the web-based portal in a graphical user interface displayed at the device associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0047] patient can access system via a web portal. [0015] this includes data elements for tracking various symptoms/activities related to patient’s disease. These data elements available on the website or mobile application are understood to meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “computer application.”);
generate a customizable dashboard, on the graphical user interface (See Repko [0015] system allows healthcare provider to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient.), … generated based on at least patient information identified within the clinical record associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0013] the system helps a physician tailor a patient’s interface with tools for tracking particular data elements related to the patient’s disease. This may be integrated with or used in conjunction with personal health record (PHR) or electronic health record (EHR) information.);
displaying in the graphical user interface of the web-based portal at the device associated with the particular patient, a viewing area (See Repko [0047] patient can access system via a web portal. [0015] this includes data elements for tracking various symptoms/activities related to patient’s disease. Also, from [0015] “system allows healthcare provider 130 to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient 120.”).
Repko does not disclose:
a cloud-based server configured to provide network access to the web-based portal;
obtain a link for each application in the set of relevant computer applications, wherein a link points to the corresponding computer application within the web-based portal;
[the dashboard] includes a plurality of selectable tabs;
wherein the plurality of selectable tabs includes an app tab that is configured to contain the links to the set of relevant computer applications relevant to the particular patient; and
in response to the app tab being selected within the graphical user interface of the web-based portal:
[the graphical user interface is] customized to include a selectable icon for each of the links to the set of relevant computer applications, wherein upon selection of a selectable icon, a corresponding relevant computer application is executed.
Morris teaches:
a cloud-based server configured to provide network access to the web-based portal (See Morris [0051] system can provide links for accessing apps between devices. [0056] mobile device can be in communication with servers in the Cloud.);
obtain a link for each application in the set of relevant computer applications, wherein a link points to the corresponding computer application within the web-based portal (See Morris [0051] system can provide links for accessing apps between devices. See also [0047].);
[the dashboard] includes a plurality of selectable tabs (See Morris [0050] system can receive input in the form of clickable tabs or icons.);
wherein the plurality of selectable tabs includes an app tab that is configured to contain the links to the set of relevant computer applications relevant to the particular patient (See Morris [0050] system can receive input in the form of clickable tabs or icons. [0075] linked apps can be listed in prominent tabs.); and
in response to the app tab being selected within the graphical user interface of the web-based portal (See Morris [0050] system can receive input in the form of clickable tabs or icons.):
[the graphical user interface] customized to include a selectable icon for each of the links to the set of relevant computer applications (See Morris [0050] system can receive input in the form of clickable tabs or icons for linking to target applications.),
wherein upon selection of a selectable icon, a corresponding relevant computer application is executed (See Morris [0050] system can receive input in the form of clickable tabs or icons. [0079] selection of a target app icon in the tab menu of the source app can be associated with the main or home screen of the target app, whereas selection of a data icon can be associated with another screen of the target app.).
The system of Morris is applicable to the disclosure of Repko as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing healthcare apps for patients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Repko to include icon and tab elements as taught by Morris. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Repko in order to address increasing challenges in secure and controlled management of patients' medical data (see Morris [0040])
Regarding claim 17, Repko in view of Morris discloses the system of claim 16 as discussed above. Repko further discloses a system, wherein:
the system is configured to determine the set of relevant computer applications from the plurality of available computer applications to be relevant to the particular patient based on at least one characteristic documented in the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0013] the system helps a physician tailor a patient’s interface with tools for tracking particular data elements related to the patient’s disease. This may be integrated with or used in conjunction with personal health record (PHR) or electronic health record (EHR) information.), wherein the at least one characteristic is a clinical diagnosis, a condition, a medication, a symptom, or a family history documented in the clinical record 9See Repko [0015] the system allows healthcare providers to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient. [0018] the healthcare provider may select appropriate data modules for patient to track based on the patient's current health, disease state, perceived triggers, etc.).
Regarding claim 19, Repko in view of Morris discloses the system of claim 16 as discussed above. Repko further discloses a system, wherein:
the system is configured to access the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient and determine whether the particular patient is associated with at least one particular characteristic documented in the clinical record (See Repko Fig. 4 and [0043] once the patient has an account on the system (including the creation of a username and password associated with their Patient ID as performed in [0024]) the system creates and provides access to a Patient Account Record that includes patient health information. [0023] the system can be implemented as an integrated with and Electronic Medical Record. Therefore, the system provides access to the clinical record of the patient associated with their credentials. [0013] the system helps a physician tailor a patient’s interface with tools for tracking particular data elements. This can be based on condition and includes medication tracking. Therefore, the tools determined to be relevant to the patient can be based on medication.).
Regarding claim 20, Repko in view of Morris discloses the system of claim 16 as discussed above. Repko further discloses a system, wherein:
the system is configured to determine whether a first computer application from the plurality of available computer applications is relevant to the particular patient based, at least in part, upon the first computer application being specified as relevant within the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0015] the system allows healthcare providers to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient. [0018] the healthcare provider may select appropriate data modules for patient to track based on the patient's current health, disease state, perceived triggers, etc.).
Claims 5, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Repko (U.S. 2014/0172450), hereinafter “Repko,” in view of Morris et al. (U.S. 2017/0286614), hereinafter “Morris,” and further in view of Mynhier et al. (U.S. 2016/0210427), hereinafter “Mynhier.”
Regarding claim 5, Repko in view of Morris discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Repko does not further disclose a method, wherein:
the plurality of available computer applications include one or more applications that comply with Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources standard.
Mynhier teaches:
the plurality of available computer applications include one or more applications that comply with Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources standard (See Mynhier [0085] the system can use the FHIR standard.).
The system of Mynhier is applicable to the disclosure of Repko in view of Morris as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to customizing patient user experience. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Repko to include the FHIR standard as taught by Mynhier. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Repko in order to standardize information in accordance with terminologically robust standards (see Mynhier [0085]).
Regarding claim 14, Repko in view of Morris discloses the media of claim 9 as discussed above. Repko does not further disclose a media, wherein:
each of the plurality of available computer applications include one or more applications that comply with or is based upon Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources.
Mynhier teaches:
each of the plurality of available computer applications include one or more applications that comply with or is based upon Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (See Mynhier [0085] the system can use the FHIR standard.).
The system of Mynhier is applicable to the disclosure of Repko in view of Morris as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to customizing patient user experience. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Repko to include the FHIR standard as taught by Mynhier. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Repko in order to standardize information in accordance with terminologically robust standards (see Mynhier [0085]).
Regarding claim 18, Repko in view of Morris discloses the system of claim 16 as discussed above. Repko does not further disclose a system, wherein:
each of the plurality of available computer applications include one or more applications that are based upon Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources.
Mynhier teaches:
each of the plurality of available computer applications include one or more applications that are based upon Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (See Mynhier [0085] the system can use the FHIR standard.).
The system of Mynhier is applicable to the disclosure of Repko in view of Morris as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to customizing patient user experience. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Repko to include the FHIR standard as taught by Mynhier. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Repko in order to standardize information in accordance with terminologically robust standards (see Mynhier [0085]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 11-14, and 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,106,833. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims appear to be a broader version of the claims from the ‘833 patent, and therefore are anticipated by the claims of the ‘833 patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Experton et al. (U.S. 20180233225) teaches a system and method for prescribing the use of specific health-care related apps to assist physicians achieve quality measures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN L HANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, 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.
/B.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/KENNETH BARTLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684