DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to application 18/965,951 filed on 12/02/2024 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 recites “The computer-readable medium of claim 16.” Claim 16 is a method claim; it seems the applicant meant to state “The computer-readable medium of claim 17.” 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes, it’s a method(process).
Step 2a Prong 1 (judicial exception)
Step 2A (1): “Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes , the claim comes under mental processes.
Claim 1 recites:
“A method for operating a patient viewer on a computing device of a patient, the method comprising: receiving an action instruction for the patient to perform, wherein the action instruction pertains to a condition of the patient, and the action instruction is generated based on the condition of the patient by an artificial intelligence engine of a cognitive intelligence platform; presenting the action instruction in a first screen of the patient viewer; receiving medical records comprising information about the condition of the patient; presenting at least a portion of the medical records in a second screen of the patient viewer; receiving recommended curated content pertaining to the condition of the patient to educate the patient about the condition; and presenting the recommended curated content in a third screen of the patient viewer.
All the limitations above are abstract idea related to the mental process (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)) with the exception of bold and underlined limitations. Claim language pertains to analyzing medical condition of the patient, after receiving data/medical record of the patient. Based on the specified medical condition of the patient , a personalized content is recommended.
Step 2A(2): Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. NO
The claim does recite additional elements; however they don’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Computing device (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Patient viewer(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
artificial intelligence engine; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
cognitive intelligence platform (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
screen (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving medical records(Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g))
receiving recommended curated content(Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception? NO
As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Regarding claim limitations:
receiving medical records( i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); )
receiving recommended curated content i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); )
Dependent claims 2-16 further narrow the abstract idea recited above with regard to claim 1; in addition, claims contain additional elements of “screen”, “graphical element”, “artificial intelligence engine”, “cognitive intelligence platform”, “natural language search query” .
Under step 2A, prong two, the above recited units/devices don’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 17 and 20 are computer-readable medium and system substantially same as the method of claim 1. In addition to claim 1, claims 17 and 20 further recite additional limitations of “computer readable medium”, “ processing device”, “memory”, knowledge graph”.
Under step 2A, prong two, the additional limitations mentioned above, doesn’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 18-19, further narrow the abstract idea recited above with regard to claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 1-3, 6, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(2) as anticipated by Scott et al. (US 20200090801 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Scott teaches a method for operating a patient viewer on a computing device of a patient, the method comprising:
receiving an action instruction for the patient to perform, wherein the action instruction pertains to a condition of the patient, and the action instruction is generated based on the condition of the patient by an artificial intelligence engine of a cognitive intelligence platform(para, “[0042] The system and methods herein also provide a range of benefits to clinicians. For example, the system enables seamless execution of lab tests throughout various stages from ordering of such tests and communication of results to the patient to instructing the patient regarding subsequent steps or providing additional education….” Note: Also, para 0039 teaches “subsequent steps that may be taken by the patient based on test results.” Para 0041 teaches content being curated by intelligence incorporated into the system);
presenting the action instruction in a first screen of the patient viewer(See, Fig. 2A that teaches presenting information in a first screen (home page with links to articles (see, para 0063)) that recommends the patient to eat certain foods to lower their cholesterol.);
receiving medical records comprising information about the condition of the patient(Fig. 6C displays information about patient condition from the patient profile.);
presenting at least a portion of the medical records in a second screen of the patient viewer(para, “[0063] In general, a patient may log into the lab test management system 102 by providing appropriate credentials, which may include one or more of a user name, a password, a multi-factor authentication code, biometric information (e.g., a face scan or fingerprint), or any other similar identifying information. In one implementation, the patient may then be brought to a home or splash page customized for the patient. As illustrated in FIG. 2A, for example, the home page may include easy access to recent lab results and links to articles and other information relevant to the patient….”);
receiving recommended curated content pertaining to the condition of the patient to educate the patient about the condition(Para, “[0085]….In other implementations, a user may be able to click on or otherwise select various elements of the chart to access additional information. For example, in response to selecting a particular indicator, the user may be presented with detailed test result information, such as the specific raw test result value for the indicator and the specific test range for the corresponding test. Selecting an indicator or other element of the chart (e.g., a band corresponding to a particular interpretation) may also provide the user with educational content, such as articles, text, video, audio, or other multimedia, related to the test type, the user's results, recommendations for the user, and the like.);
and presenting the recommended curated content in a third screen of the patient viewer(Para, “[0063]…..As illustrated in FIG. 2A, for example, the home page may include easy access to recent lab results and links to articles and other information relevant to the patient. In certain implementations, the articles and information presented to the user may be automatically selected and curated for the patient based on the patient's test history and results…”)
Regarding claim 2, Scott teaches the method of claim 1.
Scott further teaches wherein: the first screen and the second screen are the same, the first screen and the third screen are the same, the second screen and the third screen are the same, or the first screen, the second screen, and the third screen are same((Fig. 2A, the same screen shows user condition information (diagnostics result), and suggestions to improve the condition (just for you section).
Also, “[0062] FIGS. 2A-6F are example screenshots of various user interfaces that may be provided through a lab test management system, such as the lab test management system 102 illustrated in FIG. 1. Referring first to FIGS. 2A-2C, screenshots of an example implementation of a patient user interface is provided. The patient user interface may be accessed by a patient using a smartphone, tablet, desktop or laptop computer (e.g., using a web browser) or any other similar computing device.” Note: Using web browser on computer or phone, and accessing data from different screens will cover all the combinations.)
Regarding claim 3, Scott teaches the method of claim 1.
Scott further teaches:
presenting a graphical element in conjunction with the action instruction(Para “[0085] In other implementations, a user may be able to click on or otherwise select various elements of the chart to access additional information. For example, in response to selecting a particular indicator, the user may be presented with detailed test result information, such as the specific raw test result value for the indicator and the specific test range for the corresponding test. Selecting an indicator or other element of the chart (e.g., a band corresponding to a particular interpretation) may also provide the user with educational content, such as articles, text, video, audio, or other multimedia, related to the test type, the user's results, recommendations for the user, and the like.”);
receiving a selection of the graphical element(Para “[0085] In other implementations, a user may be able to click on or otherwise select various elements of the chart to access additional information. For example, in response to selecting a particular indicator, the user may be presented with detailed test result information, such as the specific raw test result value for the indicator and the specific test range for the corresponding test. Selecting an indicator or other element of the chart (e.g., a band corresponding to a particular interpretation) may also provide the user with educational content, such as articles, text, video, audio, or other multimedia, related to the test type, the user's results, recommendations for the user, and the like.”);
and responsive to the selection, performing an action that corresponds with the action instruction(Para 0085, “In other implementations, a user may be able to click on or otherwise select various elements of the chart to access additional information. For example, in response to selecting a particular indicator, the user may be presented with detailed test result information, such as the specific raw test result value for the indicator and the specific test range for the corresponding test. Selecting an indicator or other element of the chart (e.g., a band corresponding to a particular interpretation) may also provide the user with educational content, such as articles, text, video, audio, or other multimedia, related to the test type, the user's results, recommendations for the user, and the like.”)
Regarding claim 6, Scott teaches the method of claim 1.
Scott further teaches wherein the at least the portion of the medical records comprises a summary including a number of appointments the patient had over a certain time period, a number of medications prescribed to the patient, a number of chronic conditions of the patient, a number of acute conditions of the patient, or some combination thereof (para 0073, “In certain implementations, test results may be supplemented with historical information and data regarding the patient such that trends regarding the test outcome may be readily identified. For example, FIG. 6D includes LDL test results and is supplemented with a line graph including previously obtained LDL test results, which indicate an overall downward trend.”)
Regarding claim 9, Scott teaches the method of claim 1.
Scott further teaches further comprising:
receiving a selection to transmit a message to a member of a care team associated with the patient (“[0045] As previously noted, systems in accordance with the present disclosure may include a HIPAA-compliant messaging platform to facilitate communication between patients and healthcare practitioners. Such messaging may take various forms including in-system mail, chats, voice messages, video messages, and the like.” Note: if there is communication between patient and practitioner via text, then a selection to transmit a message have been made (chat requires both parties to be able to communicate).),
wherein the message comprises text input by the patient and the member comprises at least one of a physician, a physician assistant, an administrator, a nurse, a therapist, a dentist, an orthodontist, or an optometrist (“[0045] As previously noted, systems in accordance with the present disclosure may include a HIPAA-compliant messaging platform to facilitate communication between patients and healthcare practitioners. Such messaging may take various forms including in-system mail, chats, voice messages, video messages, and the like.” Note: if there is communication between patient and practitioner via text, then a selection to transmit a message have been made (chat requires both parties to be able to communicate);
Also, para 0041 “…Patients further benefit from the educational resources available through the system, particularly when such resources are curated or customized by a physician or by intelligence incorporated into the system based on the patient's characteristics or history, and direct HIPAA-compliant communication with physicians or lab consultants facilitated through the platform.” );
and transmitting the message to a cognitive intelligence platform communicatively coupled with a computing device associated with the care team to cause the message to be transmitted to the computing device associated with the care team (para 0041 “…Patients further benefit from the educational resources available through the system, particularly when such resources are curated or customized by a physician or by intelligence incorporated into the system based on the patient's characteristics or history, and direct HIPAA-compliant communication with physicians or lab consultants facilitated through the platform.” )
Regarding claim 16, Scott teaches the method of claim 1.
Scott further teaches wherein the recommended curated content is written or reviewed by a licensed medical professional (Para, “[0063]In certain implementations, the articles and information presented to the user may be automatically selected and curated for the patient based on the patient's test history and results. Articles and educational information may also be selected for presentation to the patient based on one or more of the patient's preferences, selection by the patient's physician, characteristics of the patient (e.g., sex, age, ethnicity, etc.), or any other relevant factors.”)
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(2) as anticipated by Rutledge et al. (US 20200066383 A1)
Regarding claim 17, Rutledge teaches a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processing device to execute a patient viewer to:
present, in a screen of the patient viewer, an option to view a care plan generated for a condition of a patient (“[0014] Embodiments of the present disclosure provide a system and method for providing interactive care plans to a patient from a health care provider located remote from the patient.”);
present, in the screen, an option to schedule an appointment with a person “[0042] The interactive care plan 140 may also include checklists or task lists. For example, an interactive care plan 140 may include a list of patient tasks, such as obtaining medication, resting, scheduling an appointment with a specialist, observing symptoms, and the like. The checklists or task lists may include any matter relevant to the patient's treatment. The checklists or task lists may be viewable by the patient, the patient's caregivers, other medical professionals, and the provider. Checklists or task lists may list different tasks, depending on the recipient. For example, a task list directed to a patient 102 may include the task of scheduling an appointment, while a task list directed to a caregiver may include the task of reminding the patient 102 to schedule an appointment. The consultation application 122 may automatically determine which tasks to send when multiple recipients are involved.”)
present, in the screen, an option to view medical resources tailored for a condition of a patient (“[0059] Based on the severity of her symptoms, the patient will be directed to one of three treatment paths. If presenting with “normal” symptoms, the patient will be directed to a digital library to learn more about her condition. If she is still concerned, the patient may be directed to have a text virtual consult with a physician and given more opportunities for education over the next several weeks. If presenting with “moderately concerning” symptoms, the patient will be directed to have a virtual consult with a physician. The physician may prescribe short-term medication, may require that patient measurements be taken more frequently, and may provide daily and weekly education for the patient….”);
present, in the screen, an option to read and transmit a message with a member of a care team associated with the patient (Para 0036 “……A virtual consult 218 may include text or instant message conversations with a medical professional. The medical professional may discuss the patient's symptoms and potential treatments to discover if an alternative treatment plan may be more appropriate. A virtual consult 218 may also put the patient's mind at ease about their symptoms.”);
and present, in the screen, an option to view a health record of the patient (Para 0030, ….“For instance, the consultation application 122 may keep a record of all patients who have been matched with a particular interactive care plan 140, whether they were successful, and other data relevant to the treatment process…..”)
Regarding claim 19, Rutledge teaches the method of claim 17.
Rutledge further teaches wherein the processing device is further to:
receive a selection to modify which options are presented on the screen of the patient viewer (“[0048] As another example, a provider may wish to modify the interactive care plan 140 for a patient based on the patient 102's compliance, success of the treatment methodology, or other factors. The provider may access the interactive care plan 140 through the consultation application 122 to make adjustments….”
Also, “[0022] The interactive care plan 140 is a health treatment plan developed by a medical professional. The interactive care plan 140 may set forth one or more treatment options for a patient 102 that may vary depending on a number of factors. For instance, the interactive care plan 140 may provide multiple treatment options depending on the type and severity of symptoms the patient 102 presents with…” Note: here the options/plans to be presented to the user can be modified based on different factors.);
and responsive to the selection, modify the options that are presented on the screen (“[0048] As another example, a provider may wish to modify the interactive care plan 140 for a patient based on the patient 102's compliance, success of the treatment methodology, or other factors. The provider may access the interactive care plan 140 through the consultation application 122 to make adjustments…”; Note: here these plans are interactive plans that are presented to user on their device, thus on screen)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-5, 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Shankar et al. (US 20170277841 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Scott teaches the method of claim 1.
Scott does not explicitly teach wherein the action instruction is included in a care plan electronically generated, by the artificial intelligence engine, based on a knowledge graph of the condition and interactions pertaining to the condition already performed by the patient.
Shankar teaches wherein the action instruction is included in a care plan electronically generated, by the artificial intelligence engine, based on a knowledge graph of the condition and interactions pertaining to the condition already performed by the patient (“[0048] FIG. 3 is an architecture block diagram for medical analysis and learning. The block diagram 300 includes a rules engine 310. The rules engine 310 takes a structured and consistent knowledge representation 314 of all available medical knowledge information and best practices. Natural language processing 312 can be used to process the knowledge representation 314 into medical rules through the rules engine 310. The rules from rules engine 310 are ordered into nodes and edges using one or more graph algorithms 320. The resulting graph is a medical probabilistic rule graph. The graph algorithms 320 can include recommending actions 324. The graph algorithms 320 can include machine learning/deep learning 322. The graph algorithms can order the medical knowledge data rules into a directed acyclic graph (DAG). The DAG can be ordered using graph inference and machine learning scoring 330. The graph can be customized by including real-time inputs 332, such as the attributes of an individual patient. The customized graph enables providing clinical delivery 334 of diagnoses and/or treatments through application programming interface (API) 340.“)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply care plan generating based on knowledge graph teaching of Shankar into the teachings of Scott at the time the application was filed in order to determine a treatment for the individual from the attributes.” (Abstract, “A diagnosis for the individual is generated from the attributes applied to the medical probabilistic rule graph. A treatment for the individual can be generated from the attributes applied to the medical probabilistic rule graph.”)
Regarding claim 5, Scott as modified by Shanker teaches the method of claim 4.
Scott further teaches wherein the action instruction comprises: an instruction for the patient to schedule an appointment, an instruction for the patient to discuss, with a member of a care team for the patient, a watch list of the condition, another condition, or both, an instruction for the patient to discuss, with the member of the care team, medication options for the condition, an instruction for the patient to have a certain test performed for the condition, an instruction for the patient to take a certain medication for the condition, an instruction for the patient to read certain content pertaining to the condition, an instruction for the patient to follow a certain nutritional plan based on the condition, or some combination thereof (Scott, Fig. 2A teaches instructing to read articles that can improve Cholesterol naturally)
Regarding claim 8, Scott teaches the method of claim 1.
Scott further teaches:
receiving a selection to view the recommended content (“[0064] As illustrated in FIG. 2B, a patient may access his or her historical tests and lab reports through the user interface. Results may be arranged, for example, in reverse chronological order and the user may click or otherwise select any of the listed results to “drill-down” and receive additional information regarding a particular test. In certain implementations, each listed lab report may include indicators corresponding to the results of the corresponding tests. Such indicators may include, without limitation, color-coded shapes and/or numerical values that summarize the results to the patient in a clear and intuitive way.” Also note that recommendations for education material are provided as link (para 0063), and link have to be clicked to review the article.)
and transmitting the selection to the cognitive intelligence platform to cause a patient graph of the patient to be updated with an interaction pertaining to the recommended content (“[0046] In certain implementations, the system may also track and record patient interaction with the system to ensure that the patient has received and reviewed test results or other materials. Such confirmation may be used to meet various regulations and standards related to patient communication including, without limitation, HIPAA compliancy, meaningful user requirements, Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) requirements, and Merit Based Incentive Payments System (MIPS) requirements.”)
Scott does not explicitly teach further comprising:
and transmitting the selection to the cognitive intelligence platform to cause a patient graph of the patient to be updated with an interaction pertaining to the recommended content.
Shanker teaches:
and transmitting the selection to the cognitive intelligence platform to cause a patient graph of the patient to be updated with an interaction pertaining to the recommended content (Para 0045, “….The flow 100 includes learning the risk models based on treatment results 180. Once a certain treatment had been recommended and followed, the clinical results for the individual can be used to update the risk models, thus augmenting the extant body of medical knowledge information. Outcomes of applying the prioritized plurality of recommendations can be collected and analyzed. The results of the analysis can be used to augment the risk assessment, to improve diagnosis, to supplement treatments, and so on. The updated risk models can be learned to order the additional information into the medical probabilistic rule graph 134. In this way, the medical probabilistic rule graph is updated in real time with current data from, potentially, around the world.”)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply care plan generating based on knowledge graph teaching of Shankar into the teachings of Scott at the time the application was filed in order to determine a treatment for the individual from the attributes.” (Abstract, “A diagnosis for the individual is generated from the attributes applied to the medical probabilistic rule graph. A treatment for the individual can be generated from the attributes applied to the medical probabilistic rule graph.”)
Regarding claim 20, Scott teaches a system for operating a patient viewer, comprising:
a memory device storing instructions(see para, 0016);
a processing device communicatively coupled to the memory device(para, 0016)
wherein the processing device executes the instructions to:
present, in a first screen of the patient viewer, a care plan including an action instruction, wherein the action instruction pertains to a condition of the patient(para, “[0042] The system and methods herein also provide a range of benefits to clinicians. For example, the system enables seamless execution of lab tests throughout various stages from ordering of such tests and communication of results to the patient to instructing the patient regarding subsequent steps or providing additional education….” Note: Also, para 0039 teaches “subsequent steps that may be taken by the patient based on test results.” ,
receive recommended curated content pertaining to the condition of the patient to educate the patient about the condition(Para 0085, “….In other implementations, a user may be able to click on or otherwise select various elements of the chart to access additional information. For example, in response to selecting a particular indicator, the user may be presented with detailed test result information, such as the specific raw test result value for the indicator and the specific test range for the corresponding test. Selecting an indicator or other element of the chart (e.g., a band corresponding to a particular interpretation) may also provide the user with educational content, such as articles, text, video, audio, or other multimedia, related to the test type, the user's results, recommendations for the user, and the like);
and present the recommended curated content in a second screen of the patient viewer (Para, “[0063]…..As illustrated in FIG. 2A, for example, the home page may include easy access to recent lab results and links to articles and other information relevant to the patient. In certain implementations, the articles and information presented to the user may be automatically selected and curated for the patient based on the patient's test history and results…”)
Scott does not explicitly teach and the action instruction is generated based on a knowledge graph of the condition and interactions pertaining to the condition already performed by the patient.
Shanker teaches and the action instruction is generated based on a knowledge graph of the condition and interactions pertaining to the condition already performed by the patient (“[0048] FIG. 3 is an architecture block diagram for medical analysis and learning. The block diagram 300 includes a rules engine 310. The rules engine 310 takes a structured and consistent knowledge representation 314 of all available medical knowledge information and best practices. Natural language processing 312 can be used to process the knowledge representation 314 into medical rules through the rules engine 310. The rules from rules engine 310 are ordered into nodes and edges using one or more graph algorithms 320. The resulting graph is a medical probabilistic rule graph. The graph algorithms 320 can include recommending actions 324. The graph algorithms 320 can include machine learning/deep learning 322. The graph algorithms can order the medical knowledge data rules into a directed acyclic graph (DAG). The DAG can be ordered using graph inference and machine learning scoring 330. The graph can be customized by including real-time inputs 332, such as the attributes of an individual patient. The customized graph enables providing clinical delivery 334 of diagnoses and/or treatments through application programming interface (API) 340.“)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply care plan generating based on knowledge graph teaching of Shankar into the teachings of Scott at the time the application was filed in order to determine a treatment for the individual from the attributes.” (Abstract, “A diagnosis for the individual is generated from the attributes applied to the medical probabilistic rule graph. A treatment for the individual can be generated from the attributes applied to the medical probabilistic rule graph.”)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Shanker et al. (US 20170277841 A1) and further in view of Rutledge et al. (US 20200066383 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Scott teaches the method of claim 1.
Scott further teaches comprising:
receiving an interaction with a component of the patient viewer (“[0046] In certain implementations, the system may also track and record patient interaction with the system to ensure that the patient has received and reviewed test results or other materials. Such confirmation may be used to meet various regulations and standards related to patient communication including, without limitation, HIPAA compliancy, meaningful user requirements, Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) requirements, and Merit Based Incentive Payments System (MIPS) requirements.”);
Scott does not explicitly teach:
and transmitting a message comprising information pertaining to the interaction to a cognitive intelligence platform to cause an engagement profile of a patient graph of the patient to be updated with the interaction,
wherein the engagement profile indicates a compliance level of the patient with a care plan.
Shankar teaches:
and transmitting a message comprising information pertaining to the interaction to a cognitive intelligence platform to cause an engagement profile of a patient graph of the patient to be updated with the interaction (Para 0045, “….The flow 100 includes learning the risk models based on treatment results 180. Once a certain treatment had been recommended and followed, the clinical results for the individual can be used to update the risk models, thus augmenting the extant body of medical knowledge information. Outcomes of applying the prioritized plurality of recommendations can be collected and analyzed. The results of the analysis can be used to augment the risk assessment, to improve diagnosis, to supplement treatments, and so on. The updated risk models can be learned to order the additional information into the medical probabilistic rule graph 134. In this way, the medical probabilistic rule graph is updated in real time with current data from, potentially, around the world.”)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply care plan generating based on knowledge graph teaching of Shankar into the teachings of Scott at the time the application was filed in order to determine a treatment for the individual from the attributes.” (Abstract, “A diagnosis for the individual is generated from the attributes applied to the medical probabilistic rule graph. A treatment for the individual can be generated from the attributes applied to the medical probabilistic rule graph.”)
Scott as modified by Shankar does not explicitly teach:
wherein the engagement profile indicates a compliance level of the patient with a care plan.
Rutledge teaches:
wherein the engagement profile indicates a compliance level of the patient with a care plan (Para 0050 “For instance, the consultation application 122 may compare the success of treatment or compliance rates for multiple interactive care plans 140, 141 to determine which are more effective.” Also, see above citation for adherence levels.)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply tracking compliance rate teaching of Rutledge into the teachings of Scott as modified by Shanker at the time the application was filed in order to improve clinical outcome (Paragraph 0044, “Increased compliance may contribute to improved clinical outcomes for the patient 102, which may lead to improved health and lower costs of care.”)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutledge in view of Shanker et al. (US 20170277841 A1)
Regarding claim 18, Rutledge teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 17. Rutledge further teaches wherein the processing device is further to::
receive a selection of the option to view the care plan (para, “[0031] After analyzing the patient symptom information 103 and determining an appropriate interactive care plan 140 for treatment, the consultation application 122 may recommend one or more interactive care plans 140 to the patient 102. The recommendation may include information about the likelihood of success, the cost of the plan, the difficulty of treatment, and the like. The consultation application 122 may present multiple interactive care plans 140, 141, and so on to the patient. The patient may be allowed to select one interactive care plan based on their treatment goals, cost sensitivity, or other prerogatives.”),
wherein the care plan comprises an action instruction for the patient to perform (Para 0044, “…An interactive care plan 140 may prompt one or more actions based on the duration, frequency, expiration time, or deadline for the action. This may cause the interactive care plan 140 to alert a user about the action, request data, such as a test or measurement, schedule a consultation or visit, or provide information to a user….”;),
the action instruction is generated by an artificial intelligence engine of a cognitive intelligence platform based on knowledge of the condition and interactions pertaining to the condition already performed by the patient (Para “[0045] …An interactive care plan 140 may prompt one or more actions based on the duration, frequency, expiration time, or deadline for the action. This may cause the interactive care plan 140 to alert a user about the action, request data, such as a test or measurement, schedule a consultation or visit, or provide information to a user….”; also see para 0036 for alternative treatment plan based on symptoms.
Also, “[0043] The treatments, notifications, checklists, and other aspects of the interactive care plan 140 may be customizable based on the provider 302 and the patient. In one example, the consultation application 122 may automatically choose or suggest the components, or portions of the components of the interactive care plan 140. The consultation application 122 may determine the components using results from data analytics. In one example, an analytics module and accompanying services may allow the querying of all events data, both historic and real-time. The analytics module may automatically reason around patterns and rates related to patient behavior.”),
present the care plan (para, “[0031] After analyzing the patient symptom information 103 and determining an appropriate interactive care plan 140 for treatment, the consultation application 122 may recommend one or more interactive care plans 140 to the patient 102. The recommendation may include information about the likelihood of success, the cost of the plan, the difficulty of treatment, and the like. The consultation application 122 may present multiple interactive care plans 140, 141, and so on to the patient. The patient may be allowed to select one interactive care plan based on their treatment goals, cost sensitivity, or other prerogatives.”);
receive an interaction with a component of the patient viewer (para, “[0031] After analyzing the patient symptom information 103 and determining an appropriate interactive care plan 140 for treatment, the consultation application 122 may recommend one or more interactive care plans 140 to the patient 102. The recommendation may include information about the likelihood of success, the cost of the plan, the difficulty of treatment, and the like. The consultation application 122 may present multiple interactive care plans 140, 141, and so on to the patient. The patient may be allowed to select one interactive care plan based on their treatment goals, cost sensitivity, or other prerogatives.”);
and transmit a message comprising information pertaining to the interaction to a cognitive intelligence platform to cause an engagement profile of the [patient graph] to be updated with the interaction (Para, “[0050]…For instance, the consultation application 122 may collect data, such as patient data, treatment data, and compliance data. Patient data may include patient information such as age, weight, geographic location, existing medical conditions, and the like. Patient data may be organized according to various patient groups, or cohorts. For example, certain cohorts may divide patients 102 based on age ranges, geographic locations, demographics, comorbidities, adherence levels, and other medical factors. Some cohorts may divide patients 102 based on multiple categories of patient data. Cohorts may be created automatically by the consultation application 122 or may be customizable by administrators. Treatment data may include information such as the nature of treatment, when treatment was prescribed, the results of treatment, and the like. Compliance data may include information such as how patients 102 complied with treatment, how often compliance resulted in successful treatment, and the like…”),
wherein the engagement profile indicates a compliance level of the patient with a care plan (Para 0050 “For instance, the consultation application 122 may compare the success of treatment or compliance rates for multiple interactive care plans 140, 141 to determine which are more effective.” Also, see above citation for adherence levels.)
Rutledge does not explicitly teach:
and the interactions represented in a patient graph of the patient;
[and transmit a message comprising information pertaining to the interaction to a cognitive intelligence platform to cause an engagement profile of] the patient graph [to be updated with the interaction].
Shankar teaches:
and the interactions represented in a patient graph of the patient (Paragraph 0045, “Once a certain treatment had been recommended and followed, the clinical results for the individual can be used to update the risk models, thus augmenting the extant body of medical knowledge information. Outcomes of applying the prioritized plurality of recommendations can be collected and analyzed. The results of the analysis can be used to augment the risk assessment, to improve diagnosis, to supplement treatments, and so on. The updated risk models can be learned to order the additional information into the medical probabilistic rule graph 134. In this way, the medical probabilistic rule graph is updated in real time with current data from, potentially, around the world.”)
[and transmit a message comprising information pertaining to the interaction to a cognitive intelligence platform to cause an engagement profile of] the patient graph [to be updated with the interaction] (Paragraph 0045, “Once a certain treatment had been recommended and followed, the clinical results for the individual can be used to update the risk models, thus augmenting the extant body of medical knowledge information. Outcomes of applying the prioritized plurality of recommendations can be collected and analyzed. The results of the analysis can be used to augment the risk assessment, to improve diagnosis, to supplement treatments, and so on. The updated risk models can be learned to order the additional information into the medical probabilistic rule graph 134. In this way, the medical probabilistic rule graph is updated in real time with current data from, potentially, around the world.”)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply care plan generating based on knowledge graph teaching of Shankar into the teachings of Rutledge at the time the application was filed in order to determine a treatment for the individual from the attributes.” (Abstract, “A diagnosis for the individual is generated from the attributes applied to the medical probabilistic rule graph. A treatment for the individual can be generated from the attributes applied to the medical probabilistic rule graph.”)
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Eberting (US 20230223126 A1)
Regarding claim 11, Scott teaches the method of claim 1.
Scott does not explicitly teach further comprising:
receiving a first selection to search for an available appointment with a person;
responsive to receiving the first selection, transmitting a first request to the cognitive intelligence platform to search for the available appointment;
receiving, from the cognitive intelligence platform, information pertaining to the available appointment;
presenting the available appointment on a fourth screen in the patient viewer;
receiving a second selection to schedule the available appointment;
and responsive to receiving the second selection, transmitting a second request to the cognitive intelligence platform to cause the available appointment to be scheduled.
Eberting teaches further comprising ::
receiving a first selection to search for an available appointment with a person ([0107] For instance, a Find an Appointment or Find a Provider page may allow a patient to select the type of visit, specialist needed, an address, identifying information, medical history, medically relevant facts, maps, contact information, etc. that can be used to schedule a first or follow-up visit. The specific healthcare provider 202 may be presented to the patient for selection along with available appointment times and scheduling abilities.”);
responsive to receiving the first selection, transmitting a first request to the cognitive intelligence platform to search for the available appointment ([0107] For instance, a Find an Appointment or Find a Provider page may allow a patient to select the type of visit, specialist needed, an address, identifying information, medical history, medically relevant facts, maps, contact information, etc. that can be used to schedule a first or follow-up visit. The specific healthcare provider 202 may be presented to the patient for selection along with available appointment times and scheduling abilities.”; Note, find an appointment, searches for available appointment times that are presented to user.);
receiving, from the cognitive intelligence platform, information pertaining to the available appointment ([0107] For instance, a Find an Appointment or Find a Provider page may allow a patient to select the type of visit, specialist needed, an address, identifying information, medical history, medically relevant facts, maps, contact information, etc. that can be used to schedule a first or follow-up visit. The specific healthcare provider 202 may be presented to the patient for selection along with available appointment times and scheduling abilities.”; Note, find an appointment, searches for available appointment times that are presented to user.);
presenting the available appointment on a fourth screen in the patient viewer ([0107] For instance, a Find an Appointment or Find a Provider page may allow a patient to select the type of visit, specialist needed, an address, identifying information, medical history, medically relevant facts, maps, contact information, etc. that can be used to schedule a first or follow-up visit. The specific healthcare provider 202 may be presented to the patient for selection along with available appointment times and scheduling abilities.”; Note, find an appointment, searches for available appointment times that are presented to user.);
receiving a second selection to schedule the available appointment (“[0107] For instance, a Find an Appointment or Find a Provider page may allow a patient to select the type of visit, specialist needed, an address, identifying information, medical history, medically relevant facts, maps, contact information, etc. that can be used to schedule a first or follow-up visit. The specific healthcare provider 202 may be presented to the patient for selection along with available appointment times and scheduling abilities.” Note: first selection was by using find an appointment to search for appointments, and the second selection is selecting available appointment times.);
and responsive to receiving the second selection, transmitting a second request to the cognitive intelligence platform to cause the available appointment to be scheduled (“[0358] In one embodiment, the discussion module 900 is utilized to see, review, and/or schedule a visitation with any healthcare provider 902 on behalf of themselves or another. In various embodiments, visits of any type can also be customized based on a referral from another healthcare provider 902. In some embodiments, in-office appointments and procedures can be offered and scheduled by a patient without generating a phone call.”)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use scheduling teaching of Eberting into the teachings of Scott at the time the application was filed in order to facilitate scheduling. (“[0106] The healthcare provider 202 may offer one or more types of visits and online scheduling of the same. In some embodiments, the healthcare provider 202 may use the telemedicine system to schedule in-person or e-visits on a case-by-case basis.”)
Regarding claim 12, Scott teaches the method of claim 1.
Scott does not explicitly teach further comprising:
receiving information pertaining to a history of appointments for the patient;
and presenting the history of appointments on a fourth screen of the patient viewer.
Eberting teaches:
receiving information pertaining to a history of appointments for the patient(para, “[0361] In some embodiments, the discussion module 900 provides for displaying historical consultations and visits. Historical data may be made accessible to the healthcare provider 902 to view past appointments. The historical data may include only the history relevant to the particular healthcare facility or organization or may include all history from all health professionals, pharmacists, laboratories, or imaging centers. In such embodiments, the patient may be able to selectively hide some of the data from other practitioners”.);
and presenting the history of appointments on a fourth screen of the patient viewer(para, “[0361] In some embodiments, the discussion module 900 provides for displaying historical consultations and visits….” Note: here, historical consultations are displayed.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply information sharing teaching of Eberting into the teachings of Scott at the time the application was filed in order to present historical trends. (Eberting , para, “[0300] Various embodiments include historical data accessible to the healthcare provider 802 to view past appointments. The historical data may include only the history relevant to the particular healthcare facility or organization, or may include all history from all health professionals, pharmacists, laboratories, or imaging centers. In such embodiments, a patient may be able to selectively hide some of the data from other practitioners.”)
Regarding claim 14, Scott teaches the method of claim 1.
Scott does not explicitly teach further comprising:
receiving billing information for the patient, wherein the billing information is used to pay for services rendered at appointments;
and presenting the billing information on a fourth screen of the patient viewer.
Eberting teaches:
receiving billing information for the patient, wherein the billing information is used to pay for services rendered at appointments(para, “[0141] The healthcare provider 202 may further select to include “store-and-forward visits” and “face-to-face video visits” within their customized or individual curated products platform 200. The healthcare provider 202 may select to charge $99 per store-and-forward visit and $149 per face-to-face visit. In some embodiments, additional customization of the pricing models may be available. In some embodiments, integration with insurance companies for medical billing may be available.”);
and presenting the billing information on a fourth screen of the patient viewer(Fig, 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
586
827
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note: here, bill is displayed on screen.)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to present billing information to patient teaching of Eberting into the teachings of Scott at the time the application was filed in order to help select the healthcare provider. Eberting, para, “[0097] The pharmacist's online clinic may also include a “Help with an Online Visit” product 204 that directs the patient to a page that explains that the pharmacist can help them to use technology to see any healthcare provider 202 in their state who subscribes to the telemedicine system. The pharmacist may set a fee for this type of help/visit/facilitation. Once the patient has paid for this visit (automatic billing may bill the patient later), the patient may then select the healthcare provider 202 available via the telemedicine system by entering the handle of the healthcare provider 202.”)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Emerson et al. (US 20140096170 A1)
Regarding claim 13, Scott teaches the method of claim 1.
Scott does not explicitly teach further comprising:
receiving information pertaining to each member of a care team that provides care to the patient;
presenting the information pertaining to each member of the care team on a fourth screen of the patient viewer;
presenting an option to select each member of the care team to view additional details of each member;
and presenting a second option to transmit a message to each member of the care team.
Emerson teaches:
receiving information pertaining to each member of a care team that provides care to the patient ([0029] Referring now to FIG. 2, the display of the electronic whiteboard sub-system is organized into three sections along with a header that will keep the patient oriented as to where they are along with the current date and time: (1) a Room & Care Team section 162; (2) Schedule section 164; and (3) Goals section 166.”);
presenting the information pertaining to each member of the care team on a fourth screen of the patient viewer (See, Fig. 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
480
701
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note: The information for each member of the team is their role such nurse, doctor, etc..);
presenting an option to select each member of the care team to view additional details of each member (“[0033] Each Care Team member can be selected in order to show their picture along with more information about the role they play for the patient. When the Care Team member is highlighted and the OK button on the remote clicked a popup Window appears showing the additional information. Hitting OK on the remote a second time closes the popup and returns the user to the electronic whiteboard sub-system.”);
and presenting a second option to transmit a message to each member of the care team (“[0060] In some embodiments, the cameras are also used as part of a video chat capability that allows video conversations between patients and staff members and/or patients and family members. In a chat scenario, the camera and TV in the patient room combine to provide one half of the chat session with the camera providing the video and audio feed and the TV acting as the view port of the inbound feed from the staff or family member. As is implied in a "chat" session, the cameras involved must support an audio capability along with the video. This must be taken into consideration when deploying the patient video monitoring sub-system as not all cameras support audio.”)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply care team information sharing of Emerson into the teachings of Scott at the time the application was filed in order to obtain information about the care team and their role in the patient care. (“[0033] Each Care Team member can be selected in order to show their picture along with more information about the role they play for the patient. When the Care Team member is highlighted and the OK button on the remote clicked a popup Window appears showing the additional information. Hitting OK on the remote a second time closes the popup and returns the user to the electronic whiteboard sub-system.”)
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Carbonell et al.(US 20180336972 A1)
Regarding claim 10, Scott teaches the method of claim 1.
Scott does not explicitly teach further comprising:
receiving input comprising a natural language search query pertaining to a medical condition;
transmitting the input to the cognitive intelligence platform comprising the artificial intelligence engine trained to process the natural language search query and return a plurality of content pertaining to the medical condition based on the natural language search query;
and receiving the plurality of content;
and presenting a plurality of links to the plurality of content in the patient viewer.
Carbonell teaches:
receiving input comprising a natural language search query pertaining to a medical condition (para, “[0068]…… The patient may provide a natural language input command 407a, which may describe the patient's current condition, in this example, “I tore my ACL….”)
transmitting the input to the cognitive intelligence platform comprising the artificial intelligence engine trained to process the natural language search query and return a plurality of content pertaining to the medical condition based on the natural language search query (para, “[0068]……. As shown in FIG. 6, a patient provides a natural language input command 407b requesting the system 301 to prioritize the torn ACL cases by quality, price, time and location. The NLP 311 receives the proposed natural language command 407b and presents the results shown in FIG. 7 by prioritizing the torn ACL cases using the parameters requested by the patient.” Note: Also, see para 0013);
and receiving the plurality of content (para, “[0068]……The NLP 311 receives the proposed natural language command 407b and presents the results shown in FIG. 7 by prioritizing the torn ACL cases using the parameters requested by the patient.”);
and presenting a plurality of links to the plurality of content in the patient viewer (“[0109] In some embodiments, the prospective patient may drill down deeper into the search results to obtain additional information via the results drill down module 335. As shown in FIG. 7, a prospective patient may access additional information from the search results, such as a link to a treatment timeline 705 of the existing patient that has provided the medical documents associated with the search result 701 selected by the prospective patient. A prospective patient may select the treatment timeline link 705 to drill down to the next level of information, as shown in FIG. 8. As shown in FIG. 8, the next level of the results drill down may be a detailed treatment timeline 705 describing one or more events 801 in the course of treatment experienced by the existing patient that shared the medical information. The treatment timeline 705 may include a summary of each event 801, including the date, service provided, the cost of each event 801 and an additional link to the medical document describing the event 801 of the timeline even further. In the particular example of FIG. 8, the treatment timeline 705 may include links to the specific medical documents uploaded to the medical network.”)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to user content searching teaching of Carbonell into the teachings of Scott at the time the application was filed in order search for relevant information. (Carbonell, “[0074] In some embodiments, a prospective patient may choose to weight specific characteristics of the search as more important to the patient and thus the weighting of a particular field in each entry may affect the prioritization of the search results returned by the scoring engine 313 to the prospective patient's client device 330.”)
Regarding claim 15, Scott teaches the method of claim 1.
Scott does not explicitly teach further comprising:
receiving insurance information for the patient;
and presenting the insurance information on a fourth screen of the patient viewer.
Carbonell teaches:
receiving insurance information for the patient(Carbonell Fig. 9:
PNG
media_image3.png
770
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Note: here, insurance information of the patient is shown in Fig. 9.)
and presenting the insurance information on a fourth screen of the patient viewer( Carbonell Fig. 9:
PNG
media_image3.png
770
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Note: here, in Fig. 9 insurance information is displayed . )
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use displaying insurance information teaching of Carbonell into the teachings of Scott at the time the application was filed in order to ensure the coverage by the insurance company. (Paragraph 0023, “….The Prioritized search results may include relevant patient information such as age, condition, quality of service, cost of the service, location relative to the prospective patient, the doctor providing the service, insurance company and the coverage of the services paid for by the insurance company….”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190080055 A1 “Embodiments for generating personalized advice to a user by a processor. A health state of a user may be learned from feedback information collected from a plurality of data sources for providing one or more customized communications. One or more customized communications may be provided to a user to alter one or more activities of the user so as to avoid one or more possible negative impacts upon the health state of the user.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUMA WASEEM whose telephone number is (571)272-1316. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday(9:00 am - 5 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, 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.
/HUMA WASEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JASON B DUNHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3686