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
The present office action represents the first action on the merits.
Claims 1-40 are pending.
Priority
This application claims priority to 63/364,666 dated 13 May 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 05 February 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been fully considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(I). The following figures are unsatisfactory for reproduction because they contain text within shaded areas:
Fig. 1, 4, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Subject Matter Free of Art
The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within dependent claims 8-15 and 25-32. In particular, the cited prior art fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of:
wherein the patient variables comprise fasting plasma glucose, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1 c), random plasma glucose, blood pressure, lipid profile, creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, BMI, waist circumference, serum insulin levels, C-peptide levels, liver function test, thyroid function tests, vitamin D levels, hemoglobin level, and microalbuminuria.
wherein the patient variables comprise psoriasis area severity index (PASI), body surface area affected (BSA), dermatology life quality index (DLQI), itch severity scale (ISS), visual analog scale for pain (VAS), nail psoriasis severity index (NAPSI), physician global assessment (PGA), patient global assessment (PtGA), Health related quality of life (HRQoL), psoriasis symptom index (PSI), joint involvement, serum drug levels, and adverse psoriasis events.
wherein the patient variables comprise eczema area and severity index (EASI) score, scoring atopic dermatitis (SCORAD) index, investigator global assessment (IGA), patient oriented eczema measure (POEM), visual analog scale (VAS) for itch, patient global assessment (PtGA), dermatology life quality index (DLQI), CBC, liver function tests, renal function tests, serum drug levels, skin barrier function (transepidermal water loss / skin hydration), and adverse atopic dermatitis events.
wherein the patient variables comprise hydradenitis suppurativa clinical response (HiSCR), investigator global assessment (IGA), patient global assessment (PtGA), pain, abscess, inflammatory nodules, drainage/fistulas, dermatology quality of life index (DLQI), hydradenitis suppurativa quality of life (HiSQoL), CBC, liver function tests, renal function tests, serum drug levels, and adverse hydradenitis suppurativa events.
wherein the patient variables comprise American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria, Disease Activity Score (DAS), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ- DI),C-reactive protein (CRP) level, Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity, Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain, Swollen joint count, tender joint count, Radiographic joint damage, Short Form 36 (SF-36), EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D), Fatigue, Morning stiffness duration, Patient's assessment of joint pain, Patient's assessment of joint stiffness, Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life (RAQoL) questionnaire, serum levels of the biologic drug being studied, adverse rheumatoid arthritis events.
wherein the patient variables comprise American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), Disease Activity Score (DAS), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), C-reactive protein (CRP) level, Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity, Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain, Swollen joint count, Tender joint count, Radiographic joint damage, Short Form 36 (SF-36), EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D), Fatigue, Morning stiffness duration, Patient's assessment of joint pain, Patient's assessment of joint stiffness, Psoriatic Arthritis Quality of Life (PsAQoL) questionnaire, and adverse psoriatic arthritis events.
wherein the patient variables comprise Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI), C-reactive protein (CRP) level, Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity, Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain, Spinal pain, Spinal mobility, Short Form 36 (SF-36), EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D), Fatigue, Sleep disturbances, Patient's assessment of joint pain, Patient's assessment of joint stiffness, Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) questionnaire, and adverse Ankylosing Spondylitis events.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 36 is rejected because it is unclear and thus indefinite. Claim 36 recites “the first client computing device is the same as the second client computing device.” It is unclear how two different devices (distinguished by “first” and “second”) can be the same.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The combining of the first and second client computing devices broadens the claim rather than narrowing it. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-40 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 and 18 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 systems and methods for displaying patient data relating to chronic diseases, and therefore meet step 1.
Step 2A1
The limitations of (Claim 18 being representative) maintaining a framework for categorizing time series patient data into one of a plurality of possible categories useful for managing patients with one or more chronic health conditions; receiving… time series patient data spanning over a total time period, the time series patient data comprising a plurality of patient variables over time, and the total time period covering an entire patient history; dividing the total time period into a plurality of time intervals; for each patient variable for each time interval of the plurality of time intervals, analyzing the time series patient data of the time interval using the framework to produce a category of the plurality of possible categories; generating graphic data… to display, for each patient variable for each time interval, a visual indication of the category for the time interval; and transmitting… the graphic data…, 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) but for recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to display patient data (see Spec. Para. 0004 describing managing complex patients as a human activity) in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “maintaining… dividing… analyzing… and generating…” as indicated supra.
Other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), i.e., a method for execution by a server (computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people (i.e., a person or persons following rules or instructions to collect, display and transmit data). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people (i.e., rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow) 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 claims recite the additional elements of a server, a first client computing device, and a second client computing device that implement the identified abstract idea. The computing devices are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., any appropriate client computing device, many possibilities for the server) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim further recites the additional elements of (1) receiving time series patient data and (2) transmitting the graphic data. Each of these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the mere transmission of data, which is a form of extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that extra-solution data gathering activity cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim further recites the additional element of a graphical user interface. The graphical 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.
Step 2B
The claim does 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 server and client computing devices to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of (1) receiving time series patient data and (2) transmitting the graphic data were considered extra-solution activity. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) indicates that receiving and/or transmitting data over a network has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs., and buySAFE). Well-understood, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a graphical user interface was determined 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. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-17 and 19-40 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 as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claims 2 and 19 merely describe the plurality of possible categories, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claims 3 and 20 merely describe the framework.
Claims 4 and 21 merely describe the bimodal representation.
Claims 5 and 22 merely describe the first and second colors.
Claims 6 and 23 merely describe providing a visual representation.
Claims 7-15 merely describe the patient variables.
Claims 16, 17, 33, and 34 merely describe each time variable.
Claims 24-32 merely describe the one or more chronic health conditions.
Claims 35 and 36 merely describe the first client computing device.
Claim 37 merely describes implementing claim 18.
Claim 37 also includes the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer readable medium” and “a processor” which are analyzed the same as the “server” and do not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons.
Claims 38-40 merely describe the server.
Claim 38 also includes the additional elements of “a network adapter” and “variable categorization circuitry” which are analyzed the same as the “server” and do not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons.
Claim 39 also includes the additional elements of “variable categorization circuitry,” “a processor,” and “a non-transitory computer readable medium” which are analyzed the same as the “server” and do not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons.
Claim 40 also includes the additional element of a “non-transitory computer readable medium” which is analyzed the same as the “server” and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 16-18, and 33-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen at al. (U.S. 2019/0034589), referred to hereinafter as Chen.
REGARDING CLAIM 1
Chen teaches the method comprising:
maintaining a framework for categorizing time series patient data into one of a plurality of possible categories; [Para. 0076 teaches a framework. The various types of data collected by health systems were converted into time-sequenced (Para. 0058) resources (categories).]
receiving time series patient data spanning over a total time period, the time series patient data comprising a plurality of patient variables over time, and the total time period covering an entire patient history; [Para. 0063 teaches aggregating electronic health records (EHR). Para. 0055 teaches using all data recorded about patients, including variables. Para. 0119 teaches the data covers all historical time periods of the patient.]
dividing the total time period into a plurality of time intervals; [Fig. 4 teaches dividing the total time period into 4-hour increments.]
for each patient variable for each time interval of the plurality of time intervals, analyzing the time series patient data of the time interval using the framework to produce a category of the plurality of possible categories; [Para. 0069 teaches converting the data into a standardized format, a collection of resources (categories), and for each patient there is a “bundle” or set of such resources. These resources are then placed in time sequence order to create a timeline or chronological order of all the data in the EHR.]
generating graphic data for a GUI (Graphic User Interface) to display, for each patient variable for each time interval, a visual indication of the category for the time interval; and generating the GUI or transmitting the graphic data. [Para. 0148 teaches generating data from a health record and providing the data to an electronic device for rendering on an interface. Para. 0150 teaches a graphical display.]
REGARDING CLAIM 18
Claim 18 is analogous to Claim 1, thus Claim 18 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 1.
REGARDING CLAIMS 16, 17, 33, AND 34
Chen teaches the method(s) of claim 1/18.
Chen may not explicitly disclose each time interval is at least six weeks or each time interval is eight weeks; however, this feature would have been prima facie obvious to one having skill in the art at the time of filing (time of the invention) based on the overlap of ranges obviousness rationale. MPEP 2144.05 states that "[a] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." Citing In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Chen at Fig. 10 teaches a time interval of 4 years. As such, it would have been obvious to select a time interval of at least six weeks or a time interval of eight weeks, thus rendering the claimed invention obvious in view of the cited reference(s).
REGARDING CLAIM 35
Chen teaches the method of claim 18.
Chen further teaches
wherein the first client computing device is different from the second client computing device. [Para. 0058 teaches raw health records are transmitted (from a first client computing device) over computer networks. Para. 0148 teaches providing the data to an electronic/computing device (second client computing device).]
REGARDING CLAIM 36
Chen teaches the method of claim 18.
Chen further teaches
wherein the first client computing device is same as the second client computing device. [Para. 0058 teaches raw health records are transmitted (from a first client computing device) over computer networks. Para. 0148 teaches providing the data to an electronic/computing device (second client computing device).]
The Examiner notes that a claim may be rendered obvious where the limiting function is that of making a set of prior-known elements contiguous, i.e., bringing them together. In this case, the limiting function is that of bringing together prior-known elements (a first client computing device and a second client computing device) together. As such, this claim would additionally have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. MPEP 2144.04.
Chen fails to explicitly disclose that the computer used for input is the same as the electronic/computing device used for output. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to integrate the computing devices of Chen into a single structure, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results. See In re Larsen, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) “use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed [in the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” See MPEP 2144.04.
REGARDING CLAIM 37
Chen teaches the method of claim 18.
Chen further teaches
a non-transitory computer readable medium having recorded thereon statements and instructions that, when executed by a processor of a server, configure the server to implement the method of claim 18. [Para. 0008 teaches a computer memory.]
REGARDING CLAIM 38
Chen teaches the method of claim 18.
Chen further teaches
a server, comprising: a network adapter; and variable categorization circuitry coupled to the network adapter and configured to implement the method of claim 18. [Para. 0058 teaches raw health records are transmitted (from a first client computing device) over computer networks. The Examiner notes that a person having skill in the art would understand transmitting data via computing devices necessarily includes variable categorization circuitry (a processor) coupled to a network adapter.]
REGARDING CLAIM 39
Chen teaches the server of claim 38.
Chen further teaches
wherein: the variable categorization circuitry comprises a processor; and the server further comprises a non-transitory computer readable medium having recorded thereon statements and instructions that, when executed by the processor, configures the processor as the variable categorization circuitry. [Para. 0008 teaches a computer memory. Para. 0058 teaches raw health records are transmitted (from a first client computing device) over computer networks. The Examiner notes that a person having skill in the art would understand transmitting data via computing devices necessarily includes variable categorization circuitry (a processor).]
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 2-6 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Ginsburg et al. (U.S. 2023/0073347), referred to hereinafter as Ginsburg.
REGARDING CLAIM 2
Chen teaches the method of claim 1.
Chen may not explicitly teach
wherein the plurality of possible categories consists of two categories, such for each time interval, the visual indication for each patient variable is a bimodal representation.
However, Ginsburg teaches the following:
wherein the plurality of possible categories consists of two categories, such for each time interval, the visual indication for each patient variable is a bimodal representation. [Para. 0222 teaches data can be highlighted by color to draw attention to or otherwise emphasize data exceeding a threshold. The two categories are “below threshold” (acceptable) and “above threshold” (unacceptable), i.e., bimodal.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the method of Chen to provide a visual indication of two categories for each patient variable as taught by Ginsburg, with the motivation of improving patient care (see Ginsburg at Para. 0240).
REGARDING CLAIM 3
Chen in view of Ginsburg teaches the method of claim 2.
Ginsburg further teaches
wherein the framework comprises a threshold function, such that for each patient variable, and for each time interval, an average value of the patient variable over the time interval is compared to a threshold value or a target range to determine the bimodal representation for the patient variable in the time interval. [Para. 0222 teaches data can be highlighted by color to draw attention to or otherwise emphasize data exceeding a threshold. Para. 0369 teaches displaying an average value of a measured parameter for the time increment.]
REGARDING CLAIM 4
Chen in view of Ginsburg teaches the method of claim 3.
Ginsburg further teaches
wherein the bimodal representation for each patient variable comprises a first color for acceptable value of the patient variable and a second color for unacceptable value of the patient variable. [Para. 0222 teaches data can be highlighted by color to draw attention to or otherwise emphasize data exceeding a threshold. The first color is “no highlight” (acceptable) and the second color is “highlight” (unacceptable).]
REGARDING CLAIM 5
Chen in view of Ginsburg teaches the method of claim 4.
Ginsburg further teaches
wherein the first color is blue and a second color is red. [Para. 0222 teaches data can be highlighted by color and is thus interpreted to include blue and red (the color represents non-functional descriptive information in any event).]
REGARDING CLAIM 6
Chen in view of Ginsburg teaches the method of claim 4.
Ginsburg further teaches
providing a visual representation in a third color for any time interval for which there is no data for the patient variable. [Para. 0211 teaches columns and/or rows having no value present can be highlighted. Para. 0222 teaches data can be highlighted by color and is thus interpreted to include a third color (the color represents non-functional descriptive information in any event).]
REGARDING CLAIMS 19-23
Claims 19-23 are analogous to Claims 2-6, thus Claims 19-23 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejections of Claims 2-6.
Claims 7 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Ginsburg and Pangan et al. (U.S. 2022/0273651), referred to hereinafter as Pangan.
REGARDING CLAIM 7
Chen in view of Ginsburg teaches the method of claim 6.
Chen in view of Ginsburg may not explicitly teach
wherein the patient variables comprise CDIFF (Clostridium Difficile), CRP (C-Reactive Protein), FCP (Fecal Calprotectin), HB (Hemoglobin), WBC (White Blood Cell) count, and liver enzymes.
However, Pangan teaches the following:
wherein the patient variables comprise CDIFF (Clostridium Difficile), CRP (C-Reactive Protein), FCP (Fecal Calprotectin), HB (Hemoglobin), WBC (White Blood Cell) count, and liver enzymes. [Para. 1281 teaches Clostridium difficile. TABLE 44 teaches C-reactive protein, Fecal calprotectin, Hemoglobin, and white blood cell. Para. 1225 teaches liver enzymes.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the method of Chen in view of Ginsburg to include CDIFF (Clostridium Difficile), CRP (C-Reactive Protein), FCP (Fecal Calprotectin), HB (Hemoglobin), WBC (White Blood Cell) count, and liver enzymes as taught by Pangan, with the motivation of improving quality of life (see Pangan at Para. 0013).
REGARDING CLAIM 24
Claim 24 is analogous to Claim 7, thus Claim 24 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 7.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Raduchel et al. (U.S. 2026/0039490), referred to hereinafter as Raduchel.
REGARDING CLAIM 40
Chen teaches the server of claim 38.
Chen further teaches
wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium stores the framework for categorizing time series patient data. [Para. 0148 teaches the memory stores frameworks.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the method of Chen to store the framework in the memory as taught by Raduchel, with the motivation of improving the quality of healthcare (see Raduchel at Para. 0125).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goetzke et al. (U.S. 2002/0123906) which discloses a system for chronic pain patient risk stratification.
Platt et al. (U.S. 2001/0037222) which discloses a system and method for assessment of multidimensional pain.
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