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 .
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claim(s) 1-20 are allowable over prior art because the prior art of record fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims, in particular: “at a first time, during an encounter between a patient and a provider…populating a first data request with a patient identifier of the patient, the first set of evidence types, and a first time period preceding the encounter; transmitting the first data request to a health record database containing a corpus of historical patient data; receiving a first set of patient data corresponding to the first set of evidence types responsive to the first data request; and rendering the first set of patient data” (claim 1); “at a first time, preceding an encounter between a patient and a provider…for each unit of patient data in the first set of patient data: accessing a target format specified for the unit of patient data based on an evidence type corresponding to the unit of patient data; and populating a list of mapped patient data with the unit of patient data in the target format… at a second time, succeeding the first time, during the encounter with the patient…for each unit of patient data in the second set of patient data: accessing a target format specified for the unit of patient data based on an evidence type corresponding to the unit of patient data; and populating the list of mapped patient data with the unit of patient data in the target format; and rendering the list of mapped patient data within the provider portal” (claim 14); “at a first time preceding an encounter between a patient and a provider…rendering the first set of patient data within the provider portal by, for each unit of patient data in the first set of patient data, populating a list of mapped patient data with a unit of mapped patient data corresponding to the unit of patient data… at a second time, succeeding the first time, during the encounter with the patient… rendering the second set of patient data for the provider to review by, for each unit of patient data in the second set of patient data, populating the list of mapped patient data with a unit of mapped patient data corresponding to the unit of patient data; and at approximately the second time, serving the list of mapped patient data to the provider via the provider portal” (claim 20). Because the prior art does not teach or disclose the above features in the specific manner and combinations recited in independent claims 1, 14, 20, claims 1, 14, 20 are hereby deemed to be allowable over prior art. Originally numbered dependent claims 2-13, 15-19 incorporate the allowable features of originally numbered independent claims 1, 14, through dependency, respectively.
However, the claims are still rejected under 112 and 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “approximately” in claims 19-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What range is considered within “at approximately the first time” and “at approximately the second time”? Appropriate clarification is requested for the proper interpretation of the claim limitations, as the ambiguity renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Claim 1 is drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., method). Claim 14 is drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., method). Claim 20 is drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., method).
Independent claim 1 recites…at a first time, during an encounter between a patient and a provider; receiving a first patient indicator exhibited by the patient; querying a diagnostic model for a first set of possible diagnoses, in a population of diagnoses, for the patient, each diagnoses in the first set of possible diagnoses associated with an evidence type analogous to the first patient indicator; aggregating a first set of evidence types corresponding to the first set of possible diagnoses; populating a first data request with a patient identifier of the patient, the first set of evidence types, and a first time period preceding the encounter; …; and rendering the first set of patient data; and at a second time, succeeding the first time, during the encounter: populating a second data request, different from the first data request, with the patient identifier; …; and rendering the second set of patient data.
Independent claim 14 recites…at a first time, preceding an encounter between a patient and a provider: accessing a patient identifier of the patient from a patient list representing patients associated with the provider…; populating a first data request with the patient identifier, and a first time period preceding the encounter; …; and for each unit of patient data in the first set of patient data: accessing a target format specified for the unit of patient data based on an evidence type corresponding to the unit of patient data; and populating a list of mapped patient data with the unit of patient data in the target format; and at a second time, succeeding the first time, during the encounter with the patient: populating a second data request with: the patient identifier; and a second time period between the first time and the second time; …; for each unit of patient data in the second set of patient data: accessing a target format specified for the unit of patient data based on an evidence type corresponding to the unit of patient data; and populating the list of mapped patient data with the unit of patient data in the target format; and rendering the list of mapped patient data...
Independent claim 20 recites…a method comprising: at a first time preceding an encounter between a patient and a provider: accessing a patient identifier of the patient…; populating a first data request with the patient identifier; …; and rendering the first set of patient data…by, for each unit of patient data in the first set of patient data, populating a list of mapped patient data with a unit of mapped patient data corresponding to the unit of patient data; and at a second time, succeeding the first time, during the encounter with the patient: populating a second data request with: the patient identifier; and a time period defined between the first time and the second time; …; and rendering the second set of patient data for the provider to review by, for each unit of patient data in the second set of patient data, populating the list of mapped patient data with a unit of mapped patient data corresponding to the unit of patient data; and at approximately the second time, serving the list of mapped patient data to the provider...
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations noted above, as drafted, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people…following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to collect data (i.e., related to a patient), analyze the collected data, and output relevant information (i.e., related to a diagnosis) for a user (i.e., doctor) accordingly in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “receiving,” “querying,” “aggregating,” “populating,” “rendering,” “populating,” “rendering”; “accessing,” “populating,” “accessing,” “populating,” “populating,” “accessing,” “populating,” “rendering”; “accessing,” “populating,” “rendering,” “populating,” “populating,” “rendering,” “populating,” “serving,” as indicated supra. That is, other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra) (i.e., “a computing device” (claims 14, 20)), the claim amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people following rules or instructions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites additional elements (i.e., transmitting the first data request to a health record database containing a corpus of historical patient data; receiving a first set of patient data corresponding to the first set of evidence types responsive to the first data request; transmitting the second data request to the health record database; receiving a second set of patient data responsive to the second data request). Claim 14 recites additional elements (i.e., via a provider portal executing on a computing device accessed by the provider; transmitting the first data request to a health record database containing a corpus of historical patient data; receiving a first set of patient data responsive to the first data request; transmitting the second data request to the health record database; receiving a second set of patient data responsive to the second data request). Claim 20 recites additional elements (i.e., via a provider portal executing on a computing device accessed by the provider; transmitting the first data request to a health record database containing a corpus of historical patient data; receiving a first set of patient data responsive to the first data request; transmitting the second data request to the health record database; receiving a second set of patient data responsive to the second data request). Looking to the specifications, a computing device having a portal is described at a high level of generality (¶ 00127), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, “transmitting the first data request to a health record database containing a corpus of historical patient data; receiving a first set of patient data corresponding to the first set of evidence types responsive to the first data request; transmitting the second data request to the health record database; receiving a second set of patient data responsive to the second data request” only invokes the database merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., receiving, storing, providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only provides the input data for the performance of the abstract idea, and as such, amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e., mere data gathering), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Reevaluated under step 2B, the additional elements noted above do not provide “significantly more” when taken either individually or as an ordered combination. The use of a general purpose computer or computers (i.e., a computing device having a portal) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and does not impose any meaningful limitation on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, so it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Also, “transmitting the first data request to a health record database containing a corpus of historical patient data; receiving a first set of patient data corresponding to the first set of evidence types responsive to the first data request; transmitting the second data request to the health record database; receiving a second set of patient data responsive to the second data request” only invokes the database merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., receiving, storing, providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. See: MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as the courts have found in Parker v. Flook; similarly, the current invention merely limits the claimed calculations to the healthcare industry which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Therefore, there are no limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-13, 15-19 include all the limitations of the parent claims and further elaborate on the abstract idea discussed above and incorporated herein.
Claims 4-9, 11, 15-19 further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claim 2 further recites the additional elements of “transmitting the third data request to the health record database; receiving a third set of patient data responsive to the third data request,” which only invokes the database merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., receiving, storing, providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only provides the input data for the performance of the abstract idea, and as such, amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e., mere data gathering), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Reevaluated under step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements still amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. See: MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claim 10 further recites the additional elements of “transmitting the first notification to the provider via the provider portal” and “transmitting the second notification to the provider via the provider portal.” Claim 12 further recites the additional elements of “transmitting the second notification to the provider via the provider portal.” Claim 13 further recites the additional elements of “transmitting the first notification to the provider for review.” The “transmitting… via the provider portal” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only provides the output data of the performed abstract idea, and as such, amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e., post-solution activity), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Reevaluated under step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. See: MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claim 2 further recites the additional elements of “receiving a third set of patient data responsive to the third data request.” Claim 3 further recites the additional elements of “wherein receiving the first set of patient data comprises receiving a first subset of patient data contained in a health record stored in the health record database and corresponding to the patient,” “wherein receiving the second set of patient data comprises receiving a second subset of patient data contained in the health record,” “wherein receiving the third set of patient data comprises receiving an entirety of the health record recorded within the unbounded time period preceding the first time period.” Claim 10 further recites the additional elements of “receiving a first diagnosis for the patient from the provider via a provider portal executing on a computing device accessed by the provider.” The “receiving” from “the health record database” and “a provider portal executing on a computing device” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only provides the input data for the performance of the abstract idea, and as such, amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e., mere data gathering), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Reevaluated under step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. See: MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea groupings and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0043579 A1 teaches searching a patient specific EHR for prior relevant conditions or treatment of a diagnosis.
WO 2014/134293 A1 teaches aggregating patient data from databases and displaying the organized data during a specified time per a user request.
“Supporting Iterative Cohort Construction with Visual Temporal Queries” teaches extracting medical cohorts from databases within a particular timeframe and displaying it to users on a visual interface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-8317. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571) 272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683