DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “retrieving from memory a previously-stored generic communication and combined it with at least one of at-risk subject recipient information”. Examiner recommends amending the bolded portion of the limitation to “combining it”, “combining the generic communication”, or some other similar variation of this suggestion. For examination purposes, “combined it” is construed as “combining the generic communication”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 27-28 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “support team network management system of claim 1.” The “support team network management system” language gives the claim the appearance of depending from system claim 26, however they are recited to depend from claim 1, which is a computer-implemented method. For examination purposes they are construed to depend from system claim 26. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “supportive communication to said at least one of said at least one subject” in the last line of the claim. There appears to be a typo with repetitive wording of “at least one”. For examination purposes, the limitation is construed as “supportive communication to said at least one subject”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo Test
Claims 1-25 are drawn to a computer-implemented method, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 26-28 are drawn to a system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. apparatus). Claim 29 is drawn to a computer program product, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., manufacture).
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo Test - Prong One
The independent claim 1 (and substantially similar with independent claim 26, 29) recites:
A computer-implemented method for developing and managing a trusted support network via a computerized support team network management system having at least one processor and a memory operatively coupled to the memory and storing instructions executable by the processor, the method comprising:
registering at least one at-risk subject with the support team network management system, said registering comprising gathering personal information associated with said at least one at-risk subject;
registering at least one supporter with the support team network management system, said registering comprising gathering personal information associated with said at least one supporter;
determining whether training is warranted for said at least one supporter, and if training is warranted, then delivering training materials associated with a corresponding educational learning module to a computerized device of said at least one supporter;
determining whether support is needed for an at-risk subject; and if it is determined that support is needed, then:
identifying for said at-risk subject a support team including at least one supporter;
determining if an intervention for said at-risk person is warranted; and
delivering an intervention communication to the at-risk person if it is determined that an intervention is warranted.
These underlined elements recite an abstract idea that can be categorized, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the management of personal behavior or interactions (i.e., following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the processor with memory comprising instructions, computerized device, the limitations in the context of this claim encompass following rules or instructions to determine support teams for at-risk subjects and determining if education support, training, and intervention is required for that subject. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers management of personal behavior or interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2-25, and 27-28 reciting particular aspects of the abstract idea).
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo Test - Prong Two
A computer-implemented method for developing and managing a trusted support network via a computerized support team network management system having at least one processor and a memory operatively coupled to the memory and storing instructions executable by the processor, the method comprising: (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
registering at least one at-risk subject with the support team network management system, said registering comprising gathering personal information associated with said at least one at-risk subject;
registering at least one supporter with the support team network management system, said registering comprising gathering personal information associated with said at least one supporter;
determining whether training is warranted for said at least one supporter, and if training is warranted, then delivering training materials associated with a corresponding educational learning module to a computerized device (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) of said at least one supporter;
determining whether support is needed for an at-risk subject; and if it is determined that support is needed, then:
identifying for said at-risk subject a support team including at least one supporter;
determining if an intervention for said at-risk person is warranted; and
delivering an intervention communication to the at-risk person if it is determined that an intervention is warranted.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations, which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitations of the processor with memory comprising instructions, computerized device, thereby invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see applicant’s specification [0033]-[0036], [0047], see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claim 2 which recites reporting delivering of the intervention to the supporter, thus furthering the abstract idea; claim 3 recites reporting the delivery of the intervention comprises transmission data via a communication network, thus invoking the use of computers; claim 4 recites enabling communication among supporters thus furthering the abstract idea; claim 5 recites providing software interface enabling communication among supporters, thus invoking the use of computers; claim 6 recites providing access to contact information to the supporters thus furthering the abstract idea; claim 7 recites registering the at-risk subject comprises gathering personal information with contact information and association-type information with the at-risk subject thus furthering the abstract idea; claim 8 recites gathering information of contact information and association information with that supporter thus furthering the abstract idea; claim 9 recites determining if the supporter is a layperson thus furthering the abstract idea; claim 10 recites determining a time period since last completion of training for the supporter thus furthering the abstract idea; claim 11 recites delivering training materials via a network to the computerized device and data comprising one of a text, image, audio, video file, and a hyperlink, thus invoking the use of computers; claim 12 recites delivering training materials via a network and using contact information gathered during registering, thus amounting to invoking the use of computers and furthering the abstract idea; claim 13 recites determining if support is needed comprises receiving data communication comprising a request for support from the at-risk subject thus amounting to invoking the use of computers and furthering the abstract idea; claim 14 recites determining if support is needed comprises receiving data communication from the supporters computerized device reporting the at-risk subject’s request for support, thus amounting to invoking the use of computers and furthering the abstract idea; claim 15 recites identifying one supporter having a common characteristic with the at-risk person thus furthering the abstract idea; claim 16 recites comparing personal information of the at-risk subject to personal information of the supporters to identify commonality thus furthering the abstract idea; claim 17 recites identifying a supporter requesting to serve as support for an at-risk person thus furthering the abstract idea; claim 18 recites performing automated analysis of a communication originated from the at-risk person’s computing device furthering the abstract idea; claim 19 recites detecting key words suggesting intervention is needed thus furthering the abstract idea; claim 20 recites identifying an attempt by the at-risk person to communicate with a supporter of said at-risk person’s support team thus furthering the abstract idea; claim 21 recites composing and transmitting automated intervention providing support amounts to furthering the abstract idea; claim 22 recites retrieving from memory previously stored communication prepared by a support team member thus invoking the use of computers; claim 23 recites retrieving from memory previously stored generic communication and combined with the at-risk subject recipient information and supporter member information thus invoking the use of computers; claim 24 recites delivering a pre-recorded audio message, text message, or an email message to the person’s computing device thus invoking the use of computers; claim 25 recites facilitating personal communication between supporter and the subject thus invoking the use of computers; claim 27 recites an intervention modules comprising a fifth set of executable instructions stored in memory and for providing supportive communication to the subject thus invoking computers; claim 28 recites a sixth set of instructions stored in memory to provide reporting of delivery of supportive communication thus invoking the use of computers; and claims 2-25, and 27-28 additional limitations which generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo Test for Claims
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 discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. Additionally, the additional elements, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than elements which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as using the processor with memory comprising instructions, computerized device, e.g., Applicant’s spec describes the computer system with it being well-understood, routine, and conventional because it describes in a manner that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such elements to satisfy 112a. (See Applicant’s Spec. [0033]-[0036], [0047]); using a processor coupled with a memory database to perform the steps, e.g., merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and are generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of environment. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-9, 11-12, 15-19, 21-22, 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster et al. (US 2011/0131060) in view of Storey et al. (US 2020/0394737).
Regarding claim 1, Schuster discloses a computer-implemented method for developing and managing a trusted support network via a computerized support team network management system having at least one processor and a memory operatively coupled to the memory and storing instructions executable by the processor, the method comprising: (Schuster [0103] an individual patient's primary supporter, such as a friend or family member supporter. In an exemplary situation where a patient has a primary supporter, the primary supporter(s) can better support a patient's recovery… the primary supporter can use this detailed information provided by an exemplary embodiment of the present invention to better evaluate progress and watch for problems while simultaneously providing moral support and family/friend peer pressure for better patient's adherence with the planned treatment [0254] The above-described exemplary embodiments of an apparatus, system and method in computer-readable media include program instructions to implement various operations embodied by a computer
registering at least one at-risk subject with the support team network management system, said registering comprising gathering personal information associated with said at least one at-risk subject; (Schuster [0025] the method comprising registering the patient that received medical service where patient information is received in order to register the patient {patient information is construed as personal information})
determining whether training is warranted for said at least one supporter, and if training is warranted, then delivering training materials associated with a corresponding educational learning module to a computerized device of said at least one supporter; (Schuster [0106] An exemplary implementation of the present invention comprises features including but not limited to one more of the following: A Case Manager Contacts The Primary Supporter And Explains The Program (Contingent On Receipt Of Consent From The Patient, Verifies Preferred Contact Method For The Primary Supporter, Discusses Other Patient Conditions And Currently Used Medications, Tells The Primary Supporter That The Inventor's Reminder Service Will Start The Day The Patient Leaves The Hospital, Explains To The Primary Supporter What To Expect From The Patient Prior And Shortly After The Surgery); Asks Them To Set-Up An Account At Nudgerx.Com, According to The Inventor's Website For The Present Invention; Explains To The Primary Supporter Member What To Expect From The Patient Prior To And Shortly After The Surgery (Preparation For The Surgery, How The Patient Will Feel Afterward, Some Suggestions As Far As Preparing To Support The Patient, Direct Primary Supporter To Website For More Detailed Information); and Discuss The Value Of The Inventor's Reminder Service To The Primary Supporter (Help Understanding The Doctor's Treatment Instructions And A Place The Supporter Can Go To For Support…; [0112] Link To Demo/Walk-Through Of Primary Supporter Portal, Provide Logon--Verify Preferred Methods Of Communication))
determining whether support is needed for an at-risk subject; and (Schuster [0200] According to exemplary implementations of the present invention, all communications and responses from the patient and supporters must be analyzed for potential problems. For example, the exemplary system of the present invention can analyze each response and the response trend over time to determine if the patient's recovery is progressing normally or if signs of a problem are apparent)
if it is determined that support is needed, then: identifying for said at-risk subject a support team including at least one supporter; (Schuster [0103] Exemplary embodiments and/or implementations of the present invention provide a system, method and apparatus for improving various expected types of communication between the exemplary system of the present invention and at least one of an individual patient's primary supporter, such as a friend or family member supporter. In an exemplary situation where a patient has a primary supporter, the primary supporter(s) can better support a patient's recovery when they are kept informed on a patient's progress and by sharing detailed information about a patient's condition with them)
delivering an intervention communication to the at-risk person if it is determined that an intervention is warranted (Schuster [0196] An exemplary implementation of the present invention provides for one or more of the following communication, including but not limited to: Morning Summary Text, Email, Telephone, Mobile Application Messages; Daily Custom Websites With Monitoring Questions; Daily Reminder Messages; General Information Messages; Weekly Summary Messages; Desired Service Level Messages; Post Appointment Follow-Up Messages; and Any Patient Or Supporter Initiated Contact {where the determination is taught below by Storey})
Schuster does not appear to explicitly disclose the following, however Storey teaches it is old and well-known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein:
registering at least one supporter with the support team network management system, said registering comprising gathering personal information associated with said at least one supporter; (Storey [0022] In one implementation, the professional specialist is a registered psychotherapist, social worker, or clinical psychologist suited to provide therapy and/or advice to patients/users)
determining if an intervention for said at-risk person is warranted; and (Storey [0022] In one implementation, the professional specialist is a registered psychotherapist, social worker, or clinical psychologist suited to provide therapy and/or advice to patients/users. For this implementation, the user's risk for one or more of a multiple number of psychological conditions or disorders is assessed/estimated simply by way of answers from the user. The psychological condition or disorder for which a user may be at risk for may be one of a number of common conditions or disorders for which potential treatment may include therapy sessions with licensed therapists [0025] The questionnaire may be curated or compiled based on multiple relevant sources such as journals, manuals, and other sources suitable for the purpose. In one implementation, the questionnaire may have questions that query the user's habits, feelings, issues, and thoughts. The user's answers can be the basis for further questions that delve further into more specifics about the user's actions, habits, or thoughts to determine the risks that the user may be in. Based on the user's answers, in addition to the referral or determination of a suitable professional specialist for the user, the system may provide specific advice, changes to the user's habits, or non-medicinal remedies that may assist the user with his or her state. This advice may, of course, be dependent on the system's assessment of the user's state and the amount of risk that the user may be under for a particular condition. Thus, the system may state that the user may need rest or relaxation should the user's answers show a risk of anxiety. Similarly, other life intervention-type advice may be provided by the system based on the user's state)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schuster to incorporate registering at least one supporter with the support team network management system, said registering comprising gathering personal information associated with said at least one supporter; determining if an intervention for said at-risk person is warranted as taught by Storey in order to assess the patient based on their condition and have a professional provide advice that would best benefit that patient and their condition. See Storey [0025].
Regarding claim 2, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: reporting delivery of said intervention communication to at least one of a supporter, a support team comprising the supporter, and a caregiver for the at-risk person. (Schuster [0075] Primary Supporter(S) Will Receive The Same Information As The Patient, [0103] Exemplary embodiments and/or implementations of the present invention provide a system, method and apparatus for improving various expected types of communication between the exemplary system of the present invention and at least one of an individual patient's primary supporter, such as a friend or family member supporter. In an exemplary situation where a patient has a primary supporter, the primary supporter(s) can better support a patient's recovery when they are kept informed on a patient's progress and by sharing detailed information about a patient's condition with them).
Regarding claim 3, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein said reporting delivery of said intervention communication comprises transmission of data via a communications network. (Schuster [0027] the server provides patient information to a recipient via an electronic communication network 202)
Regarding claim 4, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: enabling communication among a plurality of supporters of said support team for said at-risk subject. (Schuster [0075] Include Specific Identification Of Friends And Family Members Who Will Participate/Support Them In Their Recovery (Authorization To Contact And Contact Information--Email, Phone, Address, Etc., Two Levels Of Friend/Family Member Supporters--Primary Supporter(S))
Regarding claim 5, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein said enabling communication among a plurality of supporters of said support team for said at-risk subject comprises providing a software interface enabling communication among said plurality of supporters. (Schuster [0062] According to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, an Internet Website executing the exemplary method and/or system of the present invention can provide a bi-directional interface between the system of the present invention, and a patient or a user of the system. The exemplary system of the present invention provides for asking questions of patients and supporters that can be answered in various multiple choice formats)
Regarding claim 6, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein said enabling communication among a plurality of supporters of said support team for said at-risk subject comprises providing to at least one of said plurality of supporters access to contact information of at least one other of said plurality of supporters. (Schuster [0075] Include Specific Identification Of Friends And Family Members Who Will Participate/Support Them In Their Recovery (Authorization To Contact And Contact Information--Email, Phone, Address, Etc., Two Levels Of Friend/Family Member Supporters--Primary Supporter(S))
Regarding claim 7, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein said registering said at least one at-risk subject comprises gathering personal information comprising at least one of contact information and association-type information associated with said at least one at-risk subject. (Schuster [0171] An exemplary implementation of the present invention provides for one or more of the following communication, including but not limited to: Electronic transfer of information from insurance company about patient including contact information and approved surgery (Pre-Authorization Number, Patient's Name, Patient's Address, Patients Phone Number, Patient's Email Address, Patient's Condition, Name Of Scheduled Surgery, Date Of Scheduled Hospital Admission And Surgery, Hospital's Name, Hospital's Address, Hospital's Phone Number, Surgeon's Name, Surgeon's Address, Surgeon's Phone Number, Surgeon's Email Address, Primary Care Physician's Name, Primary Care Physician's Address, Primary Care Physician's Phone Number, Primary Care Physician's Email Address, Insurance Company Contact's Name, Insurance Company Contact's Address, Insurance Company Contact's Phone Number, Insurance Company Contact's Email Address, E-Mail, Fax, Etc., Eligibility File And Authorization Data, Information About Any Comorbid Conditions Or Treatment Plans--Ideally Includes Patient History)
Regarding claim 8, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein said registering said at least one supporter comprises gathering personal information comprising at least one of contact information and association-type information associated with said at least one supporter. (Schuster [0075] Include Specific Identification Of Friends And Family Members Who Will Participate/Support Them In Their Recovery (Authorization To Contact And Contact Information--Email, Phone, Address, Etc., Two Levels Of Friend/Family Member Supporters--Primary Supporter(S))
Regarding claim 9, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein said determining whether training is warranted for said at least one supporter comprises determining whether said at least one supporter is a layperson. (Schuster [0075] Include Specific Identification Of Friends And Family Members Who Will Participate/Support Them In Their Recovery (Authorization To Contact And Contact Information--Email, Phone, Address, Etc., Two Levels Of Friend/Family Member Supporters--Primary Supporter(S) {identifying a family member as the supporter is construed as determining them to be the layperson})
Regarding claim 11, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein said delivering of training materials comprises transmitting, via a network to the computerized device of said at least one supporter, data comprising at least one of a text file, an image file, an audio file, a video file and a hyperlink to any one of same. (Schuster [0112] Link To Demo/Walk-Through Of Primary Supporter Portal, Provide Logon--Verify Preferred Methods Of Communication))
Regarding claim 12, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein said delivering of training materials comprises transmitting data, via the network to the computerized device of said at least one supporter, using contact information gathered during registering said at least one support with the support team network management system. (Schuster [0075] Include Specific Identification Of Friends And Family Members Who Will Participate/Support Them In Their Recovery (Authorization To Contact And Contact Information--Email, Phone, Address, Etc., Two Levels Of Friend/Family Member Supporters--Primary Supporter(S) [0112] Link To Demo/Walk-Through Of Primary Supporter Portal, Provide Logon--Verify Preferred Methods Of Communication)).
Regarding claim 15, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein said identifying for said at-risk subject said support team including at least one supporter comprises identifying at least one supporter having a common characteristic with said at-risk person. (Schuster [0075] Include Specific Identification Of Friends And Family Members Who Will Participate/Support Them In Their Recovery {from the same family/same last name is construed a s common characteristic}).
Regarding claim 16, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein said identifying at least one supporter having a common characteristic with said at-risk person comprises comparing personal information of said at-risk subject to personal information of supporters registered with said support team network management system to identifying commonality of at least one of a family, a school, a university, a sports team, and a religious institution. (Schuster [0075] Include Specific Identification Of Friends And Family Members Who Will Participate/Support Them In Their Recovery).
Regarding claim 17, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein said identifying at least one supporter having a common characteristic with said at-risk person comprises referencing personal information gathered during registration to identify a supporter having requested to serve as a supporter for said at-risk person. (Schuster [0075] Include Specific Identification Of Friends And Family Members Who Will Participate/Support Them In Their Recovery {same last names being construed as the common characteristic which is gathered from the personal information during registration}).
Regarding claim 18, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein said determining if an intervention for said at-risk person is warranted is determined by the support team network management system performing an automated analysis of a communication originating from said at-risk person's computing device (Storey [0014] an automated assessment module for producing an assessment of said user's risk of multiple possible conditions based on answers provided by said user to a questionnaire provided by said assessment module).
Regarding claim 19, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 18, wherein said performing an automated analysis of a communication originating from said at-risk person's computing device comprises detecting key words suggesting an intervention is warranted. (Storey [0014] an automated assessment module for producing an assessment of said user's risk of multiple possible conditions based on answers provided by said user to a questionnaire provided by said assessment module)
Regarding claim 21, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein said delivering an intervention if it is determined that an intervention is warranted comprises composing and transmitting an automated intervention communication providing support to said at- risk subject. (Schuster [0196] An exemplary implementation of the present invention provides for one or more of the following communication, including but not limited to: Morning Summary Text, Email, Telephone, Mobile Application Messages; Daily Custom Websites With Monitoring Questions; Daily Reminder Messages; General Information Messages; Weekly Summary Messages; Desired Service Level Messages; Post Appointment Follow-Up Messages; and Any Patient Or Supporter Initiated Contact)
Regarding claim 22, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein said composing and transmitting an automated intervention communication providing support to said at- risk subject comprises retrieving from memory a previously-stored communication prepared by a support team member for the at-risk person. (Schuster [0196] An exemplary implementation of the present invention provides for one or more of the following communication, including but not limited to: Morning Summary Text, Email, Telephone, Mobile Application Messages; Daily Custom Websites With Monitoring Questions; Daily Reminder Messages; General Information Messages; Weekly Summary Messages; Desired Service Level Messages; Post Appointment Follow-Up Messages; and Any Patient Or Supporter Initiated Contact {Supporter initiated contact construed as the prepared intervention})
Regarding claim 24, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein said delivering an intervention if it is determined that an intervention is warranted comprises delivering at least one of a pre-recorded audio message delivered to the at-risk person by telephone call, a text message delivered to the at-risk person's computing device, an e-mail message delivered to the at-risk person's computing device. (Schuster [0196] An exemplary implementation of the present invention provides for one or more of the following communication, including but not limited to: Morning Summary Text, Email, Telephone, Mobile Application Messages; Daily Custom Websites With Monitoring Questions; Daily Reminder Messages; General Information Messages; Weekly Summary Messages; Desired Service Level Messages; Post Appointment Follow-Up Messages; and Any Patient Or Supporter Initiated Contact)
Regarding claim 25, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein said delivering an intervention if it is determined that an intervention is warranted comprises the support team network management system facilitating a personal (person-to-person) intervention communication between at least one supporter of said support team and said at-risk subject. (Schuster [0196] An exemplary implementation of the present invention provides for one or more of the following communication, including but not limited to: Morning Summary Text, Email, Telephone, Mobile Application Messages; Daily Custom Websites With Monitoring Questions; Daily Reminder Messages; General Information Messages; Weekly Summary Messages; Desired Service Level Messages; Post Appointment Follow-Up Messages; and Any Patient Or Supporter Initiated Contact {telephone or text construed as the personal (person-to-person) intervention})
Regarding claim 26, the claim recites similar limitations as those already addressed in the rejection of claim 1, and, as such is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites similar limitations as those already addressed in the rejection of claim 1, and, as such is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 28, the claim recites similar limitations as those already addressed in the rejection of claim 2, and, as such is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites similar limitations as those already addressed in the rejection of claim 1, and, as such is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster et al. (US 2011/0131060) in view of Storey et al. (US 2020/0394737) and Zakim (US 2008/0177578).
Regarding claim 10, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach the following, however, Zakim teaches it is old and well-known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein said determining whether training is warranted for said at least one supporter comprises determining a time period since a last completion of training for said at least-one supporter. (Zakim [0230] The system and method of the present invention can be used to determine, on an ongoing basis, the impact of type of medical training, length of training, location of training, and so on practice habits. It can be used to determine the effect of time since training ended, age, and so on practice habits).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schuster-Storey, as modified above, to incorporate wherein said determining whether training is warranted for said at least one supporter comprises determining a time period since a last completion of training for said at least-one supporter, as taught by Zakim, so as to determine when the last time a person was trained and the effect that has on their current knowledge. See Zakim [0230].
Claims 13-14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster et al. (US 2011/0131060) in view of Storey et al. (US 2020/0394737) and Hains et al. (US 2010/0082367).
Regarding claim 13, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not appear to teach the following, however, Hains teaches it is old and well-known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein said determining whether support is needed comprises receiving, at the support team network management system, a data communication from said at-risk subject's computerized device, said data communication comprising a request for support from said at-risk subject. (Hains [0073] The support portal 28 is configured to log support cases and to prepare activity reports on a periodic basis such as weekly and should support queries from both patients 12 and pharmacists 16; Claim 7 recites the method providing a support portal to enable assistance to be requested by said patient and said pharmacist).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schuster-Storey, as modified above, to incorporate wherein said determining whether support is needed comprises receiving, at the support team network management system, a data communication from said at-risk subject's computerized device, said data communication comprising a request for support from said at-risk subject, as taught by Hains, in order to help the patient adhere to their treatment plan. See Hains [0029].
Regarding claim 14, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not appear to teach the following, however, Hains teaches it is old and well-known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein said determining whether support is needed comprises receiving, at the support team network management system, a data communication from a supporter's computerized device reporting the at-risk subject's request for support. (Hains [0073] The support portal 28 is configured to log support cases and to prepare activity reports on a periodic basis such as weekly and should support queries from both patients 12 and pharmacists 16; Claim 7 recites the method providing a support portal to enable assistance to be requested by said patient and said pharmacist). The motivations to combine the references mentioned above are discussed in the rejection of claim 12 and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 20, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not appear to teach the following, however, Hains teaches it is old and well-known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein said determining if an intervention for said at-risk person is warranted is determined by the support team network management system identifying an attempt by the at-risk person to communicate with a supporter of said at-risk person's support team. (Hains [0081] the patient portal 32 can also be configured to request that the patient 12 select which medium/media to use for sending refill and consumption reminders. For example, the patient 12 may have the choice of receiving reminders via mobile device only (SMS, MMS, email etc.), web-based email only (e.g. Outlook.RTM., Gmail.TM. etc.), or both. The patient portal 32 also provides web-based access for the patient 12, which can facilitate ongoing updates to be made to the patient's profile, e.g. drug class, schedule changes, etc. This allows the system 10 to constantly adapt to the patient's changing needs. [0082] The patient portal 32 also provides a window into the behaviour profile of the patient 12 through their associated portal activity. This allows the system 10 to measure or rate the interactions associated with the patient 12. Similarly, patient medication script renewals can also be tracked by the system 10 through the patient portal 32. In this way, a measure of patient adherence can be determined from script renewal on an ongoing basis. The patient 12 can also be requested to self-report at interval survey gathering times [0083] The system 10 is thus configured to improve medication and advance patient care, thus enhancing patient-pharmacist relationships and providing a unique stage for targeted marketing {construed as the patient communicating with team/pharmacist and the system adapting intervention content based on the interactions}). The motivations to combine the references mentioned above are discussed in the rejection of claim 12 and incorporated herein.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster et al. (US 2011/0131060) in view of Storey et al. (US 2020/0394737) and Aaron (US 2015/0127380).
Regarding claim 23, Schuster-Storey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 21, but does not appear to explicitly teach the following, however, Aaron teaches it is old and well-known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein said composing and transmitting an automated intervention communication providing support to said at- risk subject comprises retrieving from memory a previously-stored generic communication and combined it (“combined it” is construed as “combining the generic communication”) with at least one of at-risk subject recipient information and support team supporter member information. (Aaron [0127] When a pre-formatted message or response is selected, the health care provider interface automatically populates the title and content of the message being sent to the patient without requiring additional typing on the virtual keyboard. [0181] In an embodiment illustrated by FIG. 43, the patient interface is configured to receive input via the new message area indicating one or more health care providers to whom a message is addressed, input indicating the subject of the message, and a body of the message via the virtual keyboard).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schuster-Storey, as modified above, to incorporate wherein said composing and transmitting an automated intervention communication providing support to said at- risk subject comprises retrieving from memory a previously-stored generic communication and combined it (“combined it” is construed as “combining the generic communication”)with at least one of at-risk subject recipient information and support team supporter member information, as taught by Aaron, in order to generate a pre-formatted message that is easy for the sender to create thus removing adherence barriers with this efficient emailing tool. See Aaron [0181], [0009].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA R COVINGTON whose telephone number is (303)297-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 - 5 MT.
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, Jason B. Dunham can be reached on (571) 272-8109. 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.
/AMANDA R. COVINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686