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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 21, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding Independent Claims 1, 13, and 17, the claims recite the following method steps:
generating an administrator graphical user interface for presentation to an administrative user at a first user device;
in response to detecting, via the administrator graphical user interface, a set of user inputs from the administrative user:
generating a first set of rules;
transforming the administrator graphical user interface to display a set of user interface elements corresponding to the first set of rules;
transmitting the first set of rules to a first data storage location; and
in response to a determination that the first set of rules have been authorized, storing the first set of rules in the first data storage location;
loading a first set of user records from a set of data storage locations;
generating a second set of user records from the first set of user records using the first set of rules;
determining a classification for a respective record of the second set of user records using the first set of rules, wherein the respective record includes data associated with a second user;
loading a second set of rules from the first data storage location; and
in response to a determination that the classification of the respective record is a first class:
generating a first set of goals based on the second set of rules and the first class, and associating the first set of goals with the respective record;
generating a first set of actions based on the second set of rules and the first class and associating the first set of actions with the respective record; and
transmitting the first set of goals and the first set of actions for access at a second user device.
It is the position of the Examiner that the claimed method steps are directed to an abstract mental process, as generating classification rules and associating goals and actions classified to user records constitutes the type of observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion capable of being performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The additional computer elements, such as:
a graphical user interface; and
a data storage location;
memory hardware configured to store instructions; and
processor hardware configured to execute the instructions
fail to integrate the abstract mental process into a practical application or provide significantly more because they are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality and constitute either insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering and outputting) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)) or “apply it” language (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding dependent Claims 2-7, 14-16, and 18-20, the claims are directed to the same rules-based classification abstract idea set forth above, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Regarding dependent Claims 3-5, 15, 16, 19, and 20, the claimed user interface fails to integrate the abstract mental process into a practical application or provide significantly more because it constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering and outputting) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)).
Regarding dependent Claims 8-10, the claimed storage device fails to integrate the abstract mental process into a practical application or provide significantly more because it is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality and constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering and outputting) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)) and “apply it” language (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9-11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pianet (WO2024/052524 A1) and further in view of Mason (PG Pub. No. 2022/0288460 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Pianet discloses a computerized method for classifying records across locations, the method comprising:
generating an administrator graphical user interface for presentation to an administrative user at a first user device (see Pianet, Claim 1, where the computer system comprises a display interface; see also Claim 12, where said system further comprises a cohort database comprising a plurality of cohorts, each cohort being represented by a set of cohorting parameters selected among the clinical parameters);
in response to detecting, via the administrator graphical user interface, a set of user inputs from the administrative user: generating a first set of rules (see Pianet, paragraph [0012], where the system offers the user the ability to use of cohorts and patient groups built based on the patient’s complete clinical profile … these cohorts can be built by the system using predefined parameters specific to the patient’s diagnostic status or condition [it is the position of the Examiner that ‘predefined parameters’ are not patentably distinguishable from rules]),
transforming the administrator graphical user interface to display a set of user interface elements corresponding to the first set of rules (see Pianet, Claim 12, where said system being configured to execute the steps of … defining a set of cohorting inclusion criteria of a set of cohorting parameters including the set of study clinical parameters and associated inclusion criteria, said set of cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria representing a cohort, parsing the clinical data of the patient’s database to retrieve the list of patients included in the cohort, storing the cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria for the cohort in the cohort database),
transmitting the first set of rules to a first data storage location (see Pianet, Claim 12, where said system being configured to execute the steps of … defining a set of cohorting inclusion criteria of a set of cohorting parameters including the set of study clinical parameters and associated inclusion criteria, said set of cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria representing a cohort, parsing the clinical data of the patient’s database to retrieve the list of patients included in the cohort, storing the cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria for the cohort in the cohort database), and
in response to a determination that the first set of rules have been authorized, storing the first set of rules in the first data storage location (see Pianet, Claim 12, where said system being configured to execute the steps of … defining a set of cohorting inclusion criteria of a set of cohorting parameters including the set of study clinical parameters and associated inclusion criteria, said set of cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria representing a cohort, parsing the clinical data of the patient’s database to retrieve the list of patients included in the cohort, storing the cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria for the cohort in the cohort database);
loading a first set of user records from a set of data storage locations (see Pianet, Claim 12, where said system being configured to execute the steps of … defining a set of cohorting inclusion criteria of a set of cohorting parameters including the set of study clinical parameters and associated inclusion criteria, said set of cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria representing a cohort, parsing the clinical data of the patient’s database to retrieve the list of patients included in the cohort, storing the cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria for the cohort in the cohort database);
generating a second set of user records from the first set of user records using the first set of rules (see Pianet, paragraph [0123], where the present system may be configured to group patients into cohorts defined by a set of inclusion criteria [it is the position of the Examiner that a set of inclusion criteria is not patentably distinguishable from a first set of rules]); and
determining a classification for a respective record of the second set of user records using the first set of rules, wherein the respective record includes data associated with a second user (see Pianet, paragraph [0142], where the present system may be configured to stratify a cohort in two or more subgroups based on the cohort outcome (for example, Clinical response at 1st evaluation), selected threshold (progression vs non-progression), and extract descriptive statistical insights of the cohort stratification [it is the position of the Examiner that stratifying a cohort is not patentably distinguishable from determining a classification for user records using a first set of rules]).
Pianet does not disclose:
loading a second set of rules from the first data storage location and in response to a determination that the classification of the respective record is a first class: generating a first set of goals based on the second set of rules and the first class;
associating the first set of goals with the respective record;
generating a first set of actions based on the second set of rules and the first class and associating the first set of actions with the respective record; and
transmitting the first set of goals and the first set of actions for access at a second user device.
Pianet in view of Mason discloses:
loading a second set of rules from the first data storage location and in response to a determination that the classification of the respective record is a first class (see Pianet, paragraph [0142], where the present system may be configured to stratify a cohort in two or more subgroups based on the cohort outcome (for example, Clinical response at 1st evaluation), selected threshold (progression vs non-progression), and extract descriptive statistical insights of the cohort stratification [it is the position of the Examiner that stratifying a cohort into subgroups is not patentably distinguishable from classifying records into classes]): generating a first set of goals based on the second set of rules and the first class (see Mason, paragraph [0110], where at 910, responsive to determining the at least some of the characteristics of the second user match with the at least some of the characteristics of the first user, the processing device may assign the second user to the first cohort and select, via a trained machine learning model, the treatment plan for the second user);
associating the first set of goals with the respective record (see Mason, paragraph [0110], where at 910, responsive to determining the at least some of the characteristics of the second user match with the at least some of the characteristics of the first user, the processing device may assign the second user to the first cohort and select, via a trained machine learning model, the treatment plan for the second user);
generating a first set of actions based on the second set of rules and the first class and associating the first set of actions with the respective record (see Mason, paragraph [0111], where the treatment plan may include a treatment protocol that specifies using the treatment apparatus 70 to perform certain exercises for certain lengths of time and a periodicity for performing the exercises); and
transmitting the first set of goals and the first set of actions for access at a second user device (see Mason, paragraph [0111], where the treatment plan may include a treatment protocol that specifies using the treatment apparatus 70 to perform certain exercises for certain lengths of time and a periodicity for performing the exercises).
Pianet and Mason are both contemplate patient cohorting. Accordingly, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Pianet with Mason as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 2, Pianet in view of Mason discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising, in response to a determination that the classification of the respective record is a second class:
Pianet does not disclose:
generating a second set of goals based on the second set of rules and the second class, and associating the second set of goals with the respective record; and
generating a second set of actions based on the second set of rules and the second class and associating the second set of actions with the respective record.
Pianet in view of Mason discloses:
generating a second set of goals based on the second set of rules and the second class, and associating the second set of goals with the respective record (see Mason, paragraph [0036], where artificial intelligence engine may also be trained to output treatment plans that are not optimal or sub-optimal or even inappropriate (all referred to, without limitation, as ‘excluded treatment plans’) for the patient; for example, if a patient has high blood pressure [it is the position of the Examiner that a cohort member with high blood pressure constitutes a second class], a particular exercise may not be approved or suitable for the patient as it may put the patient at unnecessary risk [it is the position of the Examiner that an alternate treatment plan constitutes a second set of goals]); and
generating a second set of actions based on the second set of rules and the second class and associating the second set of actions with the respective record (see Mason, paragraph [0111], where the treatment plan may include a treatment protocol that specifies using the treatment apparatus 70 to perform certain exercises for certain lengths of time and a periodicity for performing the exercises).
Pianet and Mason are both contemplate patient cohorting. Accordingly, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Pianet with Mason as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 9, Pianet in view of Mason discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein:
saving data to the first data storage location is performed by a first function (see Pianet, paragraph [0180], where input/output components, including input/output (I/O) interfaces 240, can include, for example, any interfaces for facilitating communication between any components of electronic device 200); and
loading data from the first data storage location is performed by a second function (see Pianet, paragraph [0180], where input/output components, including input/output (I/O) interfaces 240, can include, for example, any interfaces for facilitating communication between any components of electronic device 200).
Regarding Claim 10, Pianet in view of Mason discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the set of data storage locations is remote from the first data storage location (see Pianet, paragraph [0195], where such services can make use of ancillary technologies, including, but not limited to, ‘cloud computing’, distributed storage) and includes a plurality of storage locations (see Pianet, paragraph [0020], where the term ‘database’ defines the storage of data in an organized form and can be implemented in various ways; the patient database can be located into a single storage unit or can be spread to numerous storage units).
Regarding Claim 11, Pianet in view of Mason discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising, in response to a determination that the respective record has met one or more criteria of a set of criteria:
Pianet does not disclose:
generating a fourth set of goals based on the second set of rules and associating the fourth set of goals with the respective record; and
generating a fourth set of actions based on the second set of rules and associating the fourth set of actions with the respective record, wherein the fourth set of goals and the fourth set of actions are based on a current classification of the respective record.
Pianet in view of Mason discloses:
generating a fourth set of goals based on the second set of rules and associating the fourth set of goals with the respective record (see Mason, paragraph [0110], where at 910, responsive to determining the at least some of the characteristics of the second user match with the at least some of the characteristics of the first user, the processing device may assign the second user to the first cohort and select, via a trained machine learning model, the treatment plan for the second user); and
generating a fourth set of actions based on the second set of rules and associating the fourth set of actions with the respective record, wherein the fourth set of goals and the fourth set of actions are based on a current classification of the respective record (see Mason, paragraph [0110], where at 910, responsive to determining the at least some of the characteristics of the second user match with the at least some of the characteristics of the first user, the processing device may assign the second user to the first cohort and select, via a trained machine learning model, the treatment plan for the second user).
Pianet and Mason are both contemplate patient cohorting. Accordingly, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Pianet with Mason as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 12, Pianet in view of Mason discloses the method of Claim 11, wherein the set of criteria includes:
a criterion that is met when the respective record includes an indication of a first health concern (see Pianet, paragraph [0036], where it is understood that a ‘diagnostic status’ of a patient refer to the clinical identification of a disease, condition, or injury based on the signs and symptoms a patient is having and the patient’s health history and physical exam; in one embodiment the diagnostic status may be a cancer, including but not limited to a brain cancer, a lung cancer, a kidney cancer, and a glioblastoma);
a criterion that is met when the respective record includes an indication of a second health concern (see Pianet, paragraph [0036], where it is understood that a ‘diagnostic status’ of a patient refer to the clinical identification of a disease, condition, or injury based on the signs and symptoms a patient is having and the patient’s health history and physical exam; in one embodiment the diagnostic status may be a cancer, including but not limited to a brain cancer, a lung cancer, a kidney cancer, and a glioblastoma); and
a criterion that is met when the respective record includes an indication of a third health concern (see Pianet, paragraph [0036], where it is understood that a ‘diagnostic status’ of a patient refer to the clinical identification of a disease, condition, or injury based on the signs and symptoms a patient is having and the patient’s health history and physical exam; in one embodiment the diagnostic status may be a cancer, including but not limited to a brain cancer, a lung cancer, a kidney cancer, and a glioblastoma).
Regarding Claim 13, Pianet discloses a computer system comprising:
memory hardware configured to store instructions; and
processor hardware configured to execute the instructions, wherein the instructions include:
generating an administrator graphical user interface for presentation to an administrative user at a first user device (see Pianet, Claim 1, where the computer system comprises a display interface; see also Claim 12, where said system further comprises a cohort database comprising a plurality of cohorts, each cohort being represented by a set of cohorting parameters selected among the clinical parameters);
in response to detecting, via the administrator graphical user interface, a set of user inputs from the administrative user: generating a first set of rules (see Pianet, paragraph [0012], where the system offers the user the ability to use of cohorts and patient groups built based on the patient’s complete clinical profile … these cohorts can be built by the system using predefined parameters specific to the patient’s diagnostic status or condition [it is the position of the Examiner that ‘predefined parameters’ are not patentably distinguishable from rules]),
transforming the administrator graphical user interface to display a set of user interface elements corresponding to the first set of rules (see Pianet, Claim 12, where said system being configured to execute the steps of … defining a set of cohorting inclusion criteria of a set of cohorting parameters including the set of study clinical parameters and associated inclusion criteria, said set of cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria representing a cohort, parsing the clinical data of the patient’s database to retrieve the list of patients included in the cohort, storing the cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria for the cohort in the cohort database),
transmitting the first set of rules to a first data storage location (see Pianet, Claim 12, where said system being configured to execute the steps of … defining a set of cohorting inclusion criteria of a set of cohorting parameters including the set of study clinical parameters and associated inclusion criteria, said set of cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria representing a cohort, parsing the clinical data of the patient’s database to retrieve the list of patients included in the cohort, storing the cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria for the cohort in the cohort database), and
in response to a determination that the first set of rules have been authorized, storing the first set of rules in the first data storage location (see Pianet, Claim 12, where said system being configured to execute the steps of … defining a set of cohorting inclusion criteria of a set of cohorting parameters including the set of study clinical parameters and associated inclusion criteria, said set of cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria representing a cohort, parsing the clinical data of the patient’s database to retrieve the list of patients included in the cohort, storing the cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria for the cohort in the cohort database);
loading a first set of user records from a set of data storage locations (see Pianet, Claim 12, where said system being configured to execute the steps of … defining a set of cohorting inclusion criteria of a set of cohorting parameters including the set of study clinical parameters and associated inclusion criteria, said set of cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria representing a cohort, parsing the clinical data of the patient’s database to retrieve the list of patients included in the cohort, storing the cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria for the cohort in the cohort database);
generating a second set of user records from the first set of user records using the first set of rules (see Pianet, paragraph [0123], where the present system may be configured to group patients into cohorts defined by a set of inclusion criteria [it is the position of the Examiner that a set of inclusion criteria is not patentably distinguishable from a first set of rules]); and
determining a classification for a respective record of the second set of user records using the first set of rules, wherein the respective record includes data associated with a second user (see Pianet, paragraph [0142], where the present system may be configured to stratify a cohort in two or more subgroups based on the cohort outcome (for example, Clinical response at 1st evaluation), selected threshold (progression vs non-progression), and extract descriptive statistical insights of the cohort stratification [it is the position of the Examiner that stratifying a cohort is not patentably distinguishable from determining a classification for user records using a first set of rules]).
Pianet does not disclose:
loading a second set of rules from the first data storage location and in response to a determination that the classification of the respective record is a first class: generating a first set of goals based on the second set of rules and the first class;
associating the first set of goals with the respective record;
generating a first set of actions based on the second set of rules and the first class and associating the first set of actions with the respective record; and
transmitting the first set of goals and the first set of actions for access at a second user device.
Pianet in view of Mason discloses:
loading a second set of rules from the first data storage location and in response to a determination that the classification of the respective record is a first class (see Pianet, paragraph [0142], where the present system may be configured to stratify a cohort in two or more subgroups based on the cohort outcome (for example, Clinical response at 1st evaluation), selected threshold (progression vs non-progression), and extract descriptive statistical insights of the cohort stratification [it is the position of the Examiner that stratifying a cohort into subgroups is not patentably distinguishable from classifying records into classes]): generating a first set of goals based on the second set of rules and the first class (see Mason, paragraph [0110], where at 910, responsive to determining the at least some of the characteristics of the second user match with the at least some of the characteristics of the first user, the processing device may assign the second user to the first cohort and select, via a trained machine learning model, the treatment plan for the second user);
associating the first set of goals with the respective record (see Mason, paragraph [0110], where at 910, responsive to determining the at least some of the characteristics of the second user match with the at least some of the characteristics of the first user, the processing device may assign the second user to the first cohort and select, via a trained machine learning model, the treatment plan for the second user);
generating a first set of actions based on the second set of rules and the first class and associating the first set of actions with the respective record (see Mason, paragraph [0111], where the treatment plan may include a treatment protocol that specifies using the treatment apparatus 70 to perform certain exercises for certain lengths of time and a periodicity for performing the exercises); and
transmitting the first set of goals and the first set of actions for access at a second user device (see Mason, paragraph [0111], where the treatment plan may include a treatment protocol that specifies using the treatment apparatus 70 to perform certain exercises for certain lengths of time and a periodicity for performing the exercises).
Pianet and Mason are both contemplate patient cohorting. Accordingly, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Pianet with Mason as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 14, Pianet in view of Mason discloses the computer system of Claim 13, wherein the instructions include, in response to a determination that the classification of the respective record is a second class:
Pianet does not disclose:
generating a second set of goals based on the second set of rules and the second class, and associating the second set of goals with the respective record; and
generating a second set of actions based on the second set of rules and the second class and associating the second set of actions with the respective record.
Pianet in view of Mason discloses:
generating a second set of goals based on the second set of rules and the second class, and associating the second set of goals with the respective record (see Mason, paragraph [0036], where artificial intelligence engine may also be trained to output treatment plans that are not optimal or sub-optimal or even inappropriate (all referred to, without limitation, as ‘excluded treatment plans’) for the patient; for example, if a patient has high blood pressure [it is the position of the Examiner that a cohort member with high blood pressure constitutes a second class], a particular exercise may not be approved or suitable for the patient as it may put the patient at unnecessary risk [it is the position of the Examiner that an alternate treatment plan constitutes a second set of goals]); and
generating a second set of actions based on the second set of rules and the second class and associating the second set of actions with the respective record (see Mason, paragraph [0111], where the treatment plan may include a treatment protocol that specifies using the treatment apparatus 70 to perform certain exercises for certain lengths of time and a periodicity for performing the exercises).
Pianet and Mason are both contemplate patient cohorting. Accordingly, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Pianet with Mason as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 17, Pianet discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising processor-executable instructions, the instructions including:
generating an administrator graphical user interface for presentation to an administrative user at a first user device (see Pianet, Claim 1, where the computer system comprises a display interface; see also Claim 12, where said system further comprises a cohort database comprising a plurality of cohorts, each cohort being represented by a set of cohorting parameters selected among the clinical parameters);
in response to detecting, via the administrator graphical user interface, a set of user inputs from the administrative user: generating a first set of rules (see Pianet, paragraph [0012], where the system offers the user the ability to use of cohorts and patient groups built based on the patient’s complete clinical profile … these cohorts can be built by the system using predefined parameters specific to the patient’s diagnostic status or condition [it is the position of the Examiner that ‘predefined parameters’ are not patentably distinguishable from rules]),
transforming the administrator graphical user interface to display a set of user interface elements corresponding to the first set of rules (see Pianet, Claim 12, where said system being configured to execute the steps of … defining a set of cohorting inclusion criteria of a set of cohorting parameters including the set of study clinical parameters and associated inclusion criteria, said set of cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria representing a cohort, parsing the clinical data of the patient’s database to retrieve the list of patients included in the cohort, storing the cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria for the cohort in the cohort database),
transmitting the first set of rules to a first data storage location (see Pianet, Claim 12, where said system being configured to execute the steps of … defining a set of cohorting inclusion criteria of a set of cohorting parameters including the set of study clinical parameters and associated inclusion criteria, said set of cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria representing a cohort, parsing the clinical data of the patient’s database to retrieve the list of patients included in the cohort, storing the cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria for the cohort in the cohort database), and
in response to a determination that the first set of rules have been authorized, storing the first set of rules in the first data storage location (see Pianet, Claim 12, where said system being configured to execute the steps of … defining a set of cohorting inclusion criteria of a set of cohorting parameters including the set of study clinical parameters and associated inclusion criteria, said set of cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria representing a cohort, parsing the clinical data of the patient’s database to retrieve the list of patients included in the cohort, storing the cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria for the cohort in the cohort database);
loading a first set of user records from a set of data storage locations (see Pianet, Claim 12, where said system being configured to execute the steps of … defining a set of cohorting inclusion criteria of a set of cohorting parameters including the set of study clinical parameters and associated inclusion criteria, said set of cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria representing a cohort, parsing the clinical data of the patient’s database to retrieve the list of patients included in the cohort, storing the cohorting parameters and the inclusion criteria for the cohort in the cohort database);
generating a second set of user records from the first set of user records using the first set of rules (see Pianet, paragraph [0123], where the present system may be configured to group patients into cohorts defined by a set of inclusion criteria [it is the position of the Examiner that a set of inclusion criteria is not patentably distinguishable from a first set of rules]); and
determining a classification for a respective record of the second set of user records using the first set of rules, wherein the respective record includes data associated with a second user (see Pianet, paragraph [0142], where the present system may be configured to stratify a cohort in two or more subgroups based on the cohort outcome (for example, Clinical response at 1st evaluation), selected threshold (progression vs non-progression), and extract descriptive statistical insights of the cohort stratification [it is the position of the Examiner that stratifying a cohort is not patentably distinguishable from determining a classification for user records using a first set of rules]).
Pianet does not disclose:
loading a second set of rules from the first data storage location and in response to a determination that the classification of the respective record is a first class: generating a first set of goals based on the second set of rules and the first class;
associating the first set of goals with the respective record;
generating a first set of actions based on the second set of rules and the first class and associating the first set of actions with the respective record; and
transmitting the first set of goals and the first set of actions for access at a second user device.
Pianet in view of Mason discloses:
loading a second set of rules from the first data storage location and in response to a determination that the classification of the respective record is a first class (see Pianet, paragraph [0142], where the present system may be configured to stratify a cohort in two or more subgroups based on the cohort outcome (for example, Clinical response at 1st evaluation), selected threshold (progression vs non-progression), and extract descriptive statistical insights of the cohort stratification [it is the position of the Examiner that stratifying a cohort into subgroups is not patentably distinguishable from classifying records into classes]): generating a first set of goals based on the second set of rules and the first class (see Mason, paragraph [0110], where at 910, responsive to determining the at least some of the characteristics of the second user match with the at least some of the characteristics of the first user, the processing device may assign the second user to the first cohort and select, via a trained machine learning model, the treatment plan for the second user);
associating the first set of goals with the respective record (see Mason, paragraph [0110], where at 910, responsive to determining the at least some of the characteristics of the second user match with the at least some of the characteristics of the first user, the processing device may assign the second user to the first cohort and select, via a trained machine learning model, the treatment plan for the second user);
generating a first set of actions based on the second set of rules and the first class and associating the first set of actions with the respective record (see Mason, paragraph [0111], where the treatment plan may include a treatment protocol that specifies using the treatment apparatus 70 to perform certain exercises for certain lengths of time and a periodicity for performing the exercises); and
transmitting the first set of goals and the first set of actions for access at a second user device (see Mason, paragraph [0111], where the treatment plan may include a treatment protocol that specifies using the treatment apparatus 70 to perform certain exercises for certain lengths of time and a periodicity for performing the exercises).
Pianet and Mason are both contemplate patient cohorting. Accordingly, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Pianet with Mason as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 18, Pianet in view of Mason discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claim 17, wherein the instructions include, in response to a determination that the classification of the respective record is a second class:
Pianet does not disclose:
generating a second set of goals based on the second set of rules and the second class, and associating the second set of goals with the respective record; and
generating a second set of actions based on the second set of rules and the second class and associating the second set of actions with the respective record.
Pianet in view of Mason discloses:
generating a second set of goals based on the second set of rules and the second class, and associating the second set of goals with the respective record (see Mason, paragraph [0036], where artificial intelligence engine may also be trained to output treatment plans that are not optimal or sub-optimal or even inappropriate (all referred to, without limitation, as ‘excluded treatment plans’) for the patient; for example, if a patient has high blood pressure [it is the position of the Examiner that a cohort member with high blood pressure constitutes a second class], a particular exercise may not be approved or suitable for the patient as it may put the patient at unnecessary risk [it is the position of the Examiner that an alternate treatment plan constitutes a second set of goals]); and
generating a second set of actions based on the second set of rules and the second class and associating the second set of actions with the respective record (see Mason, paragraph [0111], where the treatment plan may include a treatment protocol that specifies using the treatment apparatus 70 to perform certain exercises for certain lengths of time and a periodicity for performing the exercises).
Pianet and Mason are both contemplate patient cohorting. Accordingly, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Pianet with Mason as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claims 3-7, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pianet and Mason as applied to Claims 1, 2, 9-11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of T (PG Pub. No. 2019/0198169 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Pianet in view of Mason discloses the method of Claim 2, further comprising:
Pianet does not disclose:
transmitting the second set of goals and the second set of actions for access at a second user device;
transforming, at the second user device, a second user interface to display at least one of: the first set of goals and the first set of actions, or the second set of goals and the second set of actions;
transforming the second user interface to display a first set of user prompts;
in response to detecting, at the second user device, a second set of user inputs from the second user corresponding to the first set of user prompts;
generating a third set of goals based on the second set of rules and associating the third set of goals with the respective record; and
generating a third set of actions based on the second set of rules and associating the third set of actions with the respective record.
T discloses:
transmitting the second set of goals and the second set of actions for access at a second user device (see T, paragraph [0119], where at block 1106, the patient evaluates treatment plans recommended by the patient healthcare interaction device);
transforming, at the second user device, a second user interface to display at least one of: the first set of goals and the first set of actions, or the second set of goals and the second set of actions (see T, paragraph [0119], where at block 1106, the patient evaluates treatment plans recommended by the patient healthcare interaction device);
transforming the second user interface to display a first set of user prompts (see T, paragraph [0124], where at block 1118, the patient reconsiders if they are convinced about the selected treatment plan; if the patient is still not convinced, the patient returns to block 1108 to select a different treatment plan); and
in response to detecting, at the second user device, a second set of user inputs from the second user corresponding to the first set of user prompts (see T, paragraph [0124], where at block 1118, the patient reconsiders if they are convinced about the selected treatment plan; if the patient is still not convinced, the patient returns to block 1108 to select a different treatment plan):
generating a third set of goals based on the second set of rules and associating the third set of goals with the respective record (see T, paragraph [0124], where at block 1118, the patient reconsiders if they are convinced about the selected treatment plan; if the patient is still not convinced, the patient returns to block 1108 to select a different treatment plan), and
generating a third set of actions based on the second set of rules and associating the third set of actions with the respective record (see T, paragraph [0125], where at block 1112, the patient reviews clinicians associated with the selected treatment plan and selects a clinician … after the patient has selected a clinician, the patient can undergo treatment).
Pianet and T are both directed toward patient treatment plans. Accordingly, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Pianet with T as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 4, Pianet in view of Mason and T discloses the method of Claim 3, further comprising:
Pianet does not disclose in response to the second set of user inputs, changing the classification of the respective record to a third class, wherein the third class is different from the first class and the second class. Mason discloses in response to the second set of user inputs, changing the classification of the respective record to a third class, wherein the third class is different from the first class and the second class (see Mason, paragraph [0034], where a clinically obese patient may lose weight and no longer meet the weight criterion for the initial cohort, result in the patient’s being reassigned to a different cohort with a different weight criterion; a different treatment plan may be selected for the new patient, and the treatment apparatus may be controlled, distally and based on the different treatment plan).
Pianet and Mason are both contemplate patient cohorting. Accordingly, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Pianet with Mason as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 5, Pianet in view of Mason and T discloses the method of Claim 3, wherein:
Pianet does not disclose the second set of user inputs corresponds to a set of answers to the first set of user prompts. T discloses the second set of user inputs corresponds to a set of answers to the first set of user prompts (see T, paragraph [0119], where the patent reviews the recommended treatments on their own; the patient healthcare interaction device 102 presents four treatment options (e.g., steroids, laser treatment, surgery, and homeopathy).
Pianet and T are both directed toward patient treatment plans. Accordingly, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Pianet with T as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 6, Pianet in view of Mason and T discloses the method of Claim 3, further comprising:
Pianet does not disclose displaying the first set of user prompts in response to displaying a user account associated with the respective record. T discloses displaying the first set of user prompts in response to displaying a user account associated with the respective record (see T, paragraph [0119], where the patent reviews the recommended treatments on their own; the patient healthcare interaction device 102 presents four treatment options (e.g., steroids, laser treatment, surgery, and homeopathy).
Pianet and T are both directed toward patient treatment plans. Accordingly, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Pianet with T as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 7, Pianet in view of Mason and T discloses the method of Claim 6, further comprising:
Pianet does not disclose:
in response to the determination that the classification of the respective record is the first class, including a first set of questions in the first set of user prompts; and
in response to the determination that the classification of the respective record is the second class, including a second set of questions in the first set of user prompts, wherein at least one question of the second set of questions differs from at least one question of the first set of questions.
T discloses:
in response to the determination that the classification of the respective record is the first class, including a first set of questions in the first set of user prompts (see T, paragraph [0119], where the patent reviews the recommended treatments on their own; the patient healthcare interaction device 102 presents four treatment options (e.g., steroids, laser treatment, surgery, and homeopathy; see also paragraph [0034], where the patient healthcare interaction device can generate a digital ‘twin’ of the patient to predict the outcome of several possible treatment plans including success rates and complications based on historical data of similar patients [it is the position of the Examiner that displaying and selecting treatment plans based on historical data of similar patients is not patentably distinguishable from providing prompts based on the class of the record); and
in response to the determination that the classification of the respective record is the second class, including a second set of questions in the first set of user prompts, wherein at least one question of the second set of questions differs from at least one question of the first set of questions (see T, paragraph [0119], where the patent reviews the recommended treatments on their own; the patient healthcare interaction device 102 presents four treatment options (e.g., steroids, laser treatment, surgery, and homeopathy; see also paragraph [0034], where the patient healthcare interaction device can generate a digital ‘twin’ of the patient to predict the outcome of several possible treatment plans including success rates and complications based on historical data of similar patients [it is the position of the Examiner that displaying and selecting treatment plans based on historical data of similar patients is not patentably distinguishable from providing prompts based on the class of the record).
Pianet and T are both directed toward patient treatment plans. Accordingly, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Pianet with T as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 15, Pianet in view of Mason discloses the system of Claim 14, wherein the instructions include:
Pianet does not disclose:
transmitting the second set of goals and the second set of actions for access at a second user device;
transforming, at the second user device, a second user interface to display at least one of: the first set of goals and the first set of actions, or the second set of goals and the second set of actions;
transforming the second user interface to display a first set of user prompts;
in response to detecting, at the second user device, a second set of user inputs from the second user corresponding to the first set of user prompts;
generating a third set of goals based on the second set of rules and associating the third set of goals with the respective record; and
generating a third set of actions based on the second set of rules and associating the third set of actions with the respective record.
T discloses:
transmitting the second set of goals and the second set of actions for access at a second user device (see T, paragraph [0119], where at block 1106, the patient evaluates treatment plans recommended by the patient healthcare interaction device);
transforming, at the second user device, a second user interface to display at least one of: the first set of goals and the first set of actions, or the second set of goals and the second set of actions (see T, paragraph [0119], where at block 1106, the patient evaluates treatment plans recommended by the patient healthcare interaction device);
transforming the second user interface to display a first set of user prompts (see T, paragraph [0124], where at block 1118, the patient reconsiders if they are convinced about the selected treatment plan; if the patient is still not convinced, the patient returns to block 1108 to select a different treatment plan); and
in response to detecting, at the second user device, a second set of user inputs from the second user corresponding to the first set of user prompts (see T, paragraph [0124], where at block 1118, the patient reconsiders if they are convinced about the selected treatment plan; if the patient is still not convinced, the patient returns to block 1108 to select a different treatment plan):
generating a third set of goals based on the second set of rules and associating the third set of goals with the respective record (see T, paragraph [0124], where at block 1118, the patient reconsiders if they are convinced about the selected treatment plan; if the patient is still not convinced, the patient returns to block 1108 to select a different treatment plan), and
generating a third set of actions based on the second set of rules and associating the third set of actions with the respective record (see T, paragraph [0125], where at block 1112, the patient reviews clinicians associated with the selected treatment plan and selects a clinician … after the patient has selected a clinician, the patient can undergo treatment).
Pianet and T are both directed toward patient treatment plans. Accordingly, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Pianet with T as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 16, Pianet in view of Mason and T discloses the system of Claim 15, wherein the instructions include:
Pianet does not disclose in response to the second set of user inputs, changing the classification of the respective record to a third class, wherein the third class is different from the first class and the second class. Mason discloses in response to the second set of user inputs, changing the classification of the respective record to a third class, wherein the third class is different from the first class and the second class (see Mason, paragraph [0034], where a clinically obese patient may lose weight and no longer meet the weight criterion for the initial cohort, result in the patient’s being reassigned to a different cohort with a different weight criterion; a different treatment plan may be selected for the new patient, and the treatment apparatus may be controlled, distally and based on the different treatment plan).
Pianet and Mason are both contemplate patient cohorting. Accordingly, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Pianet with Mason as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 19, Pianet in view of Mason discloses the non-transitory computer-readable of Claim 18, wherein the instructions further include:
Pianet does not disclose:
transmitting the second set of goals and the second set of actions for access at a second user device;
transforming, at the second user device, a second user interface to display at least one of: the first set of goals and the first set of actions, or the second set of goals and the second set of actions;
transforming the second user interface to display a first set of user prompts;
in response to detecting, at the second user device, a second set of user inputs from the second user corresponding to the first set of user prompts;
generating a third set of goals based on the second set of rules and associating the third set of goals with the respective record; and
generating a third set of actions based on the second set of rules and associating the third set of actions with the respective record.
T discloses:
transmitting the second set of goals and the second set of actions for access at a second user device (see T, paragraph [0119], where at block 1106, the patient evaluates treatment plans recommended by the patient healthcare interaction device);
transforming, at the second user device, a second user interface to display at least one of: the first set of goals and the first set of actions, or the second set of goals and the second set of actions (see T, paragraph [0119], where at block 1106, the patient evaluates treatment plans recommended by the patient healthcare interaction device);
transforming the second user interface to display a first set of user prompts (see T, paragraph [0124], where at block 1118, the patient reconsiders if they are convinced about the selected treatment plan; if the patient is still not convinced, the patient returns to block 1108 to select a different treatment plan); and
in response to detecting, at the second user device, a second set of user inputs from the second user corresponding to the first set of user prompts (see T, paragraph [0124], where at block 1118, the patient reconsiders if they are convinced about the selected treatment plan; if the patient is still not convinced, the patient returns to block 1108 to select a different treatment plan):
generating a third set of goals based on the second set of rules and associating the third set of goals with the respective record (see T, paragraph [0124], where at block 1118, the patient reconsiders if they are convinced about the selected treatment plan; if the patient is still not convinced, the patient returns to block 1108 to select a different treatment plan), and
generating a third set of actions based on the second set of rules and associating the third set of actions with the respective record (see T, paragraph [0125], where at block 1112, the patient reviews clinicians associated with the selected treatment plan and selects a clinician … after the patient has selected a clinician, the patient can undergo treatment).
Pianet and T are both directed toward patient treatment plans. Accordingly, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Pianet with T as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 20, Pianet in view of Mason and T discloses the non-transitory computer-readable of Claim 19, wherein the instructions include:
Pianet does not disclose in response to the second set of user inputs, changing the classification of the respective record to a third class, wherein the third class is different from the first class and the second class. Mason discloses in response to the second set of user inputs, changing the classification of the respective record to a third class, wherein the third class is different from the first class and the second class (see Mason, paragraph [0034], where a clinically obese patient may lose weight and no longer meet the weight criterion for the initial cohort, result in the patient’s being reassigned to a different cohort with a different weight criterion; a different treatment plan may be selected for the new patient, and the treatment apparatus may be controlled, distally and based on the different treatment plan).
Pianet and Mason are both contemplate patient cohorting. Accordingly, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Pianet with Mason as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pianet and Mason as applied to Claims 1, 2, 9-11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of An (PG Pub. No. 2025/0049355 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Pianet in view of Mason discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein:
Pianet does not disclose the first data storage location stores data in a non-relational database. An discloses the first data storage location stores data in a non-relational database (see An, paragraph [0055], where patient database 110 may be implemented as any type of datastore, such as … non-relational databases).
Pianet and An both contemplate the use of databases. Accordingly, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Pianet with An as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAD AGHARAHIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-9864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571-272-4080. 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.
/FARHAD AGHARAHIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 2161
/APU M MOFIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2161