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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the Amendment dated 03 February 2026, the following occurred:
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-13, 15-18, and 20 were amended.
Claims 5, 14, and 19 were cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-18, and 20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
(Claim 1) a data collector configured to collect data
(Claim 1) a data cleaner… configured to convert data time stamps from the collected data
(Claim 1) a temporal match module… configured to match a… patient to the collected data
(Claim 1) a match quantifier… configured to quantify a quality estimate…, and further configured to transfer
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Examiner has reviewed the as-filed disclosure and determined the following:
(Claim 1) a data collector configured to collect data
Para. 0012 part of the apparatus
Para. 0055 part of the unassigned patient data management system
Para. 0124 a processor implements the method
(Claim 1) a data cleaner… configured to convert data time stamps from the collected data
Para. 0012 part of the apparatus, communicatively coupled to the data collector
Para. 0055 part of the unassigned patient data management system
Para. 0124 a processor implements the method
(Claim 1) a temporal match module… configured to match a… patient to the collected data
Para. 0012 part of the apparatus, communicatively coupled to the data cleaner
Para. 0055 part of the unassigned patient data management system
Para. 0124 a processor implements the method
(Claim 1) a match quantifier… configured to quantify a quality estimate…, and further configured to transfer
Para. 0012 part of the apparatus, communicatively coupled to the temporal match module and a user interface
Para. 0055 part of the unassigned patient data management system
Para. 0124 a processor implements the method
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4, 6-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite a system and method for matching partial patient data from different sources, and therefore meet step 1.
Step 2A1
The limitations of (Claim 11 being representative) collecting… data from a plurality of data sources in a plurality of formats; converting… data time stamps from collected data to universal time zone data time stamps; matching… a same patient to the collected data based on the universal time zone data time stamps; quantifying… a quality estimate of the match; and transferring… the match and quality estimate of the match…; wherein matching comprises: extracting the universal time zone stamps; creating a timeline of events based on the universal time zone data time stamps that were extracted; clustering data on a patient-by-patient basis based on the timeline of events; marking the collected data with a patient identifier based on the clustered data; and creating a timeline of care that associates the collected data from the plurality of data sources in the plurality of formats to the same patient, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, falls in the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions).
Per the 112(f) interpretation and Spec. Para. 0124, 0160: the data collector, data cleaner, temporal match module, and match quantifier are interpreted as part of the computing device. That is, other than reciting a method implemented by a computing device and at least one computer readable medium (CRM), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the computing device/CRM, this claim encompasses a person matching partial patent data from different sources to create a complete picture of patient care in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computing device and a CRM that implement the identified abstract idea. The computing device/CRM is not exclusively described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., general purpose processor) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or components thereof. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims recite the additional element of a user interface. The user interface merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a general-purpose computer to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a user interface was considered to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more.
Claims 2-4, 6-10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claims 2 and 12 merely describe the operations to collect data, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 3 merely describes the sources of data, de-identifying data and the type of data, which further defines the abstract idea. Claims 8-10 merely describe a decision support module, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 17 merely describes subscribing to a plurality of feeds, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claims 3, 9, 12, and 17 further recite the additional element of one or more medical imaging devices, which is considered to “generally link” under both the practical application and significantly more analysis.
Claim 10 further recites the additional elements of one or more therapeutic devices and one or more medical management devices, which are considered to “generally link” under both the practical application and significantly more analysis.
Claims 4, 13, and 18 merely describe parsing information, detecting data outliers and/or data errors, removing and/or fixing the detected data outliers and/or data errors, and converting the collected data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 6 merely describes the temporal match module, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 7 merely describes the match quantifier, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claims 15 and 20 merely describe determining a probabilistic estimate and confidence interval, receiving user feedback, and removing the probabilistic estimate when below a threshold, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNair et al. (U.S. 10249385) in view of Streat et al. (U.S. 2023/0187086) and DeGeorge et al. (U.S. 2005/0131735), referred to hereinafter as McNair, Streat, and DeGeorge, respectively.
REGARDING CLAIM 1
McNair teaches the claimed apparatus, comprising:
a data collector configured to collect data from a plurality of data sources in a plurality of formats; [Col. 1, Line 35-39 teaches patient record linkage, or matching, is a process for identifying and connecting records belonging to the same patient, including records across several data sources. Claim 13 teaches receiving a reference record and one or more candidate records.]
a temporal match module communicatively coupled to the data cleaner, the temporal match module configured to match a same patient to the collected data based on the universal time zone data time stamps; and [Claim 13 teaches matching a candidate record (same patient) to the target record (collected data) based on the date-time variables.]
a match quantifier communicatively coupled to the temporal match module and a user interface, the match quantifier configured to quantify a quality estimate of the match, and further configured… [Claim 13 teaches determining a composite candidate record score (quality estimate of the match).]
wherein the temporal match module is further configured to: extract the universal time zone data time stamps; create a timeline of events based on the universal time zone data time stamps that were extracted; cluster data on a patient-by-patient basis based on the timeline of events; and mark the collected data with a patient identifier based on the clustered data. [Col. 13, Line 43-44 teaches retrieving (extracting) the date-time stamps. Claim 1 teaches at least one candidate record blocking variable is matched with at least one target record blocking variable (clustered on a patient-by-patient basis) and comprises a birth day, birth month, birth year, or an indication of a condition, treatment, diagnosis, or other context. A timeseries (timeline of events) is created based on the date-time variables that were retrieved. An indication of the target record (patient identifier) is added to the candidate record (collected data).]
McNair may not explicitly teach
…to transfer the match and quality estimate of the match to the user interface.
However, Streat teaches the following:
…to transfer the match and quality estimate of the match to the user interface. [Para. 0040 teaches each match score represents a quality of a match. Para. 0129 teaches providing patient lists (matches) and match scores (quality estimates) to the user interface.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of McNair to display the match and corresponding quality estimate on a user interface as taught by Streat, with the motivation of improving matching (see Streat at Para. 0046).
McNair in view of Streat may not explicitly teach
a data cleaner communicatively coupled to the data collector, the data cleaner configured to convert data time stamps from the collected data to universal time zone data time stamps;
However, DeGeorge teaches the following:
a data cleaner communicatively coupled to the data collector, the data cleaner configured to convert data time stamps from the collected data to universal time zone data time stamps; [Para. 0037 teaches converting data time stamps from the collected data to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of McNair in view of Streat to convert data time stamps to universal time zone as taught by DeGeorge, with the motivation of improving consistency (see DeGeorge at Para. 0006).
REGARDING CLAIM 3
McNair in view of Streat and DeGeorge teaches the claimed apparatus of claim 1.
McNair further teaches
wherein the data collector is communicatively coupled to one or more of the following plurality of data sources: a Health Information System, a medical imaging device, a medical imaging system, a facility monitor system, and a care platform, and [Col. 6, Line 27-28 teaches a Health Information Exchange Electronic Health Record System.]
McNair in view of Streat and DeGeorge may not explicitly teach
wherein the facility monitor system includes de-identified human presence data, wherein the de-identified human presence data includes one or more of the following: a video-type camera feed, an infrared-type camera feed, a still-image type camera feed, and an audio feed. [The “facility monitor system” is optional and the option was not taken. As such, this limitation is not required to be met and the Examiner declines to address it.]
REGARDING CLAIM 4
McNair in view of Streat and DeGeorge teaches the claimed apparatus of claim 1.
Streat further teaches
wherein the data cleaner is further to: parse information from the collected data… and convert the collected data to a single format. [Para. 0345 teaches parsing information from collected data. Para. 0032 teaches formatting the collected data.]
McNair further teaches
…detect data outliers and/or data errors from the collected data, remove and/or fix detected data outliers and/or data errors from the collected data… [Col. 10, Line 32-35 teaches excluding (removing) data which might represent errors.]
REGARDING CLAIM 6
McNair in view of Streat and DeGeorge teaches the claimed apparatus of claim 1.
McNair further teaches
wherein the temporal match module is further to: create a complete timeline of care that associates the collected data from the plurality of data sources in the plurality of formats to the same patient. [Claim 1 teaches creating a timeseries. At least one candidate record (collected data) blocking variable is matched (associated) with at least one target record (same patient) blocking variable and comprises an indication of a treatment (care).]
REGARDING CLAIM 7
McNair in view of Streat and DeGeorge teaches the claimed apparatus of claim 1.
McNair further teaches
wherein the match quantifier is further to: determine a probabilistic estimate […] of the match, receive user feedback regarding a reliability of the quality estimate of the match, and remove the probabilistic estimate when below a probability threshold value. [Col. 10, Line 65-67 teaches determining a composite score (probabilistic estimate). Claim 7 teaches receiving information from the user indicating a confirmation of the match, which is interpreted as user feedback. Col. 11, Line 36-37 teaches rejecting (removing) entities having a composite score falling below the threshold.]
Streat further teaches
…and confidence interval… [Para. 0151 teaches confidence scores.]
REGARDING CLAIMS 11 AND 16
Claims 11 and 16 are analogous to Claim 1, thus Claims 11 and 16 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 1.
REGARDING CLAIMS 13 AND 18
Claims 13 and 18 are analogous to Claim 4, thus Claims 13 and 18 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 4.
REGARDING CLAIMS 15 AND 20
Claims 15 and 20 are analogous to Claim 7, thus Claims 15 and 20 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 7.
Claims 2, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNair in view of Streat, DeGeorge, and Kamen et al. (U.S. 2021/0365849), referred to hereinafter as Kamen.
REGARDING CLAIM 2
McNair in view of Streat and DeGeorge teaches the claimed apparatus of claim 1.
McNair in view of Streat and DeGeorge may not explicitly teach
wherein operations to collect data from the plurality of data sources comprises subscribing to a plurality of feeds associated with the plurality of data sources.
However, Kamen teaches the following:
wherein operations to collect data from the plurality of data sources comprises subscribing to a plurality of feeds associated with the plurality of data sources. [Para. 0410 teaches subscribing to various data feeds.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of McNair in view of Streat and DeGeorge to subscribe to various feeds as taught by Kamen, with the motivation of improving quality (see Kamen at Para. 0065).
REGARDING CLAIM 12
McNair in view of Streat and DeGeorge teaches the claimed method of claim 11.
McNair further teaches
wherein the plurality of data sources includes one or more of: a Health Information System, a medical imaging device, a medical imaging system, a facility monitor system, and a care platform, and [Col. 6, Line 27-28 teaches a Health Information Exchange Electronic Health Record System.]
McNair in view of Streat and DeGeorge may not explicitly teach
wherein the facility monitor system includes de-identified human presence data, wherein the de-identified human presence data includes one or more of the following: a video-type camera feed, an infrared-type camera feed, a still-image type camera feed, and an audio feed. [The “facility monitor system” is optional and the option was not taken. As such, this limitation is not required to be met and the Examiner declines to address it.]
wherein operations to collect data from the plurality of data sources comprises subscribing to a plurality of feeds associated with the plurality of data sources,
However, Kamen teaches the following:
wherein operations to collect data from the plurality of data sources comprises subscribing to a plurality of feeds associated with the plurality of data sources, [Para. 0410 teaches subscribing to various data feeds.]
Motivation to combine the teaching of Kamen with the teachings of McNair, Streat, and DeGeorge is the same as that used with respect to claim 2 and is therefore reiterated here.
REGARDING CLAIM 17
Claim 17 is analogous to Claim 12, thus Claim 17 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 12.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNair in view of Streat, DeGeorge, and Shelton, IV et al. (U.S. 2021/0365849), referred to hereinafter as Shelton.
REGARDING CLAIM 8
McNair in view of Streat and DeGeorge teaches the claimed apparatus of claim 6.
McNair in view of Streat and DeGeorge may not explicitly teach
a decision support module to: transfer a notification to increase patient monitoring frequency to the user interface and/or order an automated increase in patient monitoring frequency in response to the complete timeline of care, wherein operations to increase the patient monitoring frequency comprises an increased data collection frequency and/or an increased data transmission frequency.
However, Shelton teaches the following:
a decision support module to: transfer a notification to increase patient monitoring frequency to the user interface and/or order an automated increase in patient monitoring frequency in response to the complete timeline of care, wherein operations to increase the patient monitoring frequency comprises an increased data collection frequency and/or an increased data transmission frequency. [Para. 0738 teaches increasing the frame-capturing rate (data collection frequency) in response to the detection of frequent motion. The detection of motion is interpreted as an event that would be included in the timeseries of treatment of McNair.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of McNair in view of Streat and DeGeorge to increase patient monitoring frequency in response to events as taught by Shelton, with the motivation of improving patient practices (see Shelton at Para. 0014).
REGARDING CLAIM 9
McNair in view of Streat and DeGeorge teaches the claimed apparatus of claim 6.
McNair in view of Streat and DeGeorge may not explicitly teach
a decision support module to: transfer a notification that one or more medical imaging procedures are needed to the user interface and/or order an automated administration of the medical imaging procedures via one or more medical imaging devices in response to the complete timeline of care.
However, Shelton teaches the following:
a decision support module to: transfer a notification that one or more medical imaging procedures are needed to the user interface and/or order an automated administration of the medical imaging procedures via one or more medical imaging devices in response to the complete timeline of care. [Para. 0934 teaches adjusting the medical imaging device in response to an implication (i.e., aggressive cancer tag) identified from the anonymized data. The implication is interpreted as a blocking variable used to create the timeseries of treatment of McNair.]
Motivation to combine the teaching of Shelton with the teachings of McNair, Streat, and DeGeorge is the same as that used with respect to claim 8 and is therefore reiterated here.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNair in view of Streat, DeGeorge, and Reiner (U.S. 2017/0068792).
REGARDING CLAIM 10
McNair in view of Streat and DeGeorge teaches the claimed apparatus of claim 6.
McNair in view of Streat and DeGeorge may not explicitly teach
a decision support module to: transfer a notification that one or more clinical interventions is needed to the user interface, order an automated administration of at least one of the one or more clinical interventions via one or more therapeutic devices, and/or order an automated administration of at least one of the one or more clinical interventions via one or more medical management devices in response to the complete timeline of care.
However, Reiner teaches the following:
a decision support module to: transfer a notification that one or more clinical interventions is needed to the user interface, order an automated administration of at least one of the one or more clinical interventions via one or more therapeutic devices, and/or order an automated administration of at least one of the one or more clinical interventions via one or more medical management devices in response to the complete timeline of care. [Para. 0091 teaches sending a notification to a physician by electronic means, such as text, that a clinical intervention is needed. Para. 0059 teaches the cell phone receiving the text includes a user interface.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of McNair in view of Streat and DeGeorge to send a notification to a user interface as taught by Reiner, with the motivation of improving clinical outcomes (see Reiner at Para. 0049).
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-18, and 20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Any arguments inadvertently not addressed are unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. Applicant argues:
Applicant asserts that the claims as a whole are not directed to a method of or system of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., following rules or instructions)) … a human being instructed to “match a same patient to the collected data based on universal time zone data time stamps” does not do the matching by performing these “extracting,” “creating,” “clustering,” and “marking” steps.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, to follow to match unassigned patient data to individual patients. The Examiner notes that Applicant’s Background describes sifting through data to understand a patient’s past and their current needs in a particular context (see Spec. Para. 0004) as a human task. Furthermore, the Examiner submits that healthcare itself is inherently represents the organization of human activity. Because the claim elements fall under a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow to sift through data to match unassigned patient data to individual patients, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
…the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application that improves matching patient data from various sources, thereby avoiding human error that occurs with such matching… Current methods of matching the patient data from various sources is often done manually by sifting through logs, phone calls, conversations with different people in the hospital by nurses/clinicians/operations managers. Such operations are laborious, prone to human error, and humans may not have ready access to machine logs and the like.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Here, the Applicant’s argued problem is not a technological problem caused by the computer. The problem of clinicians/care providers making errors was not a problem cause by the computer, is it a problem that existed and/or exists regardless of whether a computer is involved in the process. At best, Applicant’s identified problem is a management/training problem. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application.
The Examiner further notes that applicant’s argument fully supports the Examiner’s position with respect to argument (a).
The specification describes… the technological improvements resulting from the claimed method/system: …an automated tool may advantageously be used to address the challenges in utilizing unassigned patient data.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Performing the steps “automatically” is a consequence of confining the abstract idea to a computer and is not a technological improvement by any measure in MPEP 2106. And, as recognized by the CAFC, “[t]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.” FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Utilizing a computer to perform tasks that are “laborious, prone to human error, and humans may not have ready access to machine logs and the like” is using the computer as a tool for its intended purpose. Using a computer for it’s intended purpose (to perform data manipulations) does not provide the a practical application or significantly more, see, e.g., Alice Corp.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-18, and 20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
…McNair teaches a pair-wise matching approach… This is technically distinct from the approach proposed… The method/system instead involves a cluster analysis method in which a single timeline is outlined of all of the events of all of the different unassigned records and these are then clustered based on timings to associated groups of events (and therefore records) with different patients.
Regarding (d), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, “clustering” is putting data into groups. There is nothing in the claim that states the groups cannot be matched using a pair-wise approach. Further, the Examiner notes that there is only one patient required by the claim.
There must be a motivation not to simply “improve matching” or “improve consistency,” but a motivation to make the very specific modification proposed by the Patent Office, without the benefit of hindsight.
Regarding (e), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has provided proper motivations to combine the noted references and the Applicant has not offered any actual argument as to why the motivation is incorrect. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Sethumadhavan et al. (U.S. 2015/0134594) which discloses methods and systems for medical information data warehouse management.
Hussam (U.S. 2014/0100887) which discloses a patient portal.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMRYN B LEWIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 8:00 pm EST.
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, Robert W Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. 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.
/CAMRYN B LEWIS/
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights