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 .
Status of Claims
This office action for the 19/003681 application is in response to the communications filed December 27, 2024.
Claims 1-20 were initially submitted December 27, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and considered below.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1,
Step 1: The claim recites subject matter within a statutory category as a machine.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which Prong 1 determines whether a claim recites a judicial exception. Prong 2 determines if the additional limitations of the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. If the additional elements of the claim fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim contains subject matter that recites an abstract idea, with the steps of receiving a notification comprising at least one of: a communication from a stakeholder and an event notification; parsing the notification to determine information relevant to performing one or more actions; based on the information contained in the notification, causing one or more actions to be performed, wherein the one or more actions comprise one or more of: executing one or more operations. These steps, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation recite:
certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices including: hedging; insurance; mitigating risk; etc., commercial or legal interactions including: agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; etc., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including: social activities; teaching; following rules or instructions; etc.) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The identified abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon identified above, in the context of this claim, encompasses a certain method of organizing human activity, namely managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This is because each of the limitations of the abstract idea recite a list of rules or instructions that a human person can follow in the course of their personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers at least the recited methods of organizing human activity above, 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 claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception 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, see MPEP 2106.05(f), such as:
“A case management platform comprising: one or more hardware processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform operations comprising:” and “in at least one software system of the one or more software systems” which corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Paragraph [00177] of the as-filed specification describes that the hardware that implements the steps of the abstract idea amount to nothing more than a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“connecting to one or more communication sources and one or more software systems to monitor for notifications;”, “via the one or more communication sources”, “from the one or more software systems”, “transmitting a synthesized voice communication to one or more stakeholders associated with the notification” and “storing records associated with the notification to a database” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Accordingly, this claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that 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, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“connecting to one or more communication sources and one or more software systems to monitor for notifications;”, “via the one or more communication sources”, “from the one or more software systems”, and “transmitting a synthesized voice communication to one or more stakeholders associated with the notification” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
“storing records associated with the notification to a database” which corresponds to storing and retrieving information in memory.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 2,
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 2 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“performing the one or more actions based on the received instructions” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the operations further comprise: responsive to receiving the notification, transmitting the parsed information to a machine learning engine; receiving, from the machine learning engine, instructions for performing the one or more actions” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 3,
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 3 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the machine learning engine comprises a large language model.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 4,
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 4 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the one or more communication sources comprise at least one of a telephone system, an email system, a text messaging system, and a proprietary messaging application.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 5,
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 5 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the one or more software systems comprise at least one of a scheduling system, a client management system, a caregiver management system, a billing system, an authorization system, a payroll system, a timecard system, and a compliance tracking system.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 6,
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 6 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein parsing the notification comprises: performing speech-to-text processing on a voice communication to generate a text document; and performing natural language processing on the text document to extract the information relevant to performing the one or more actions.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 7,
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 7 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the operations further comprise: generating a visual avatar configured to interact with the stakeholder; and causing the visual avatar to present information to the stakeholder related to the one or more actions performed.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 8,
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 8 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the operations further comprise: determining that additional information is needed to perform the one or more actions; generating a request for the additional information;” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“transmitting the request to at least one of the stakeholder and a software system of the one or more software systems.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 9,
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 9 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the stakeholder is one of a caregiver, a client, a client family member, a client guardian, an agency manager, and a payer.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 10,
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 10 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the one or more actions comprise at least one of: managing authorized caregiving hours for a client, managing timecard exceptions, advocating for a client, coordinating care for a client, coordinating benefits for a caregiver, documenting client interactions, ensuring caregiver work compliance, managing a crisis, and supervising staff.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 11,
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
As per claim 12,
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 2. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
As per claim 13,
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 3. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
As per claim 14,
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 4. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
As per claim 15,
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 5. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
As per claim 16,
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 6. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
As per claim 17,
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 7. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
As per claim 18,
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 8. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
As per claim 19,
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 9. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
As per claim 20,
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 20 further recites “One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform operations comprising” which further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holes (US 2025/0107716).
As per claim 1,
Holes discloses a case management platform comprising: one or more hardware processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform operations:
(Paragraphs [0008] and [0196] of Holes. The teaching describes that the present invention discloses a coordinated patient care platform utilizing at least one medical device for the transmission of patient data in real time to a server for patient monitoring and care. The components for gathering a person's data may include a thermometer component for monitoring a person's temperature, a pulse oximeter component for monitoring a patient's oxygen levels, an electrocardiogram component for monitoring electrical signals from the person's heart, an accelerometer for monitoring the person's movement, a gyroscope for monitoring a person's positional axis, a sphygmomanometer for monitoring a patient's blood pressure, a global positioning system, a speaker component, a network transceiver for sending and receiving data transmissions, at least one port for inputting at least one adaptor for connecting an additional medical component, a computing component implemented by one or more processors configured with instructions in a non-transitory memory, that when executed cause the one or more processors to record the patient's biological data and execute on-device machine learned artificial intelligence, and a transmitting component for wirelessly communicating with at least one remote server for receiving in real-time biological data from one or more components of the medical device.)
Holes further discloses connecting to one or more communication sources and one or more software systems to monitor for notifications; receiving a notification comprising at least one of: a communication from a stakeholder via the one or more communication sources, and an event notification from the one or more software systems; parsing the notification to determine information relevant to performing one or more actions; based on the information contained in the notification, causing one or more actions to be performed, wherein the one or more actions comprise one or more of: executing one or more operations in at least one software system of the one or more software systems, transmitting a synthesized voice communication to one or more stakeholders associated with the notification, and storing records associated with the notification to a database:
(Paragraphs [0111]-[0114] of Holes. The teaching describes a method implemented by a system 8C. The method commences with a patient's consultation with a medical doctor to confirm or dismiss a potential diagnosis 8C2 [one or more communication sources and one or more software systems to monitor for notifications]. Upon confirmation of a diagnosis 8C5, the physician may prescribe medications 8C7, initiate a treatment regimen, which may include medical assessments, and/or activate remote patient monitoring. Each engagement with the medical device generates biological sensor readings and corresponding scoring metrics 8C11. Additional inputs, including patient assessments 8C12, patient messages [at least one of: a communication from a stakeholder via the one or more communication sources, and an event notification from the one or more software systems] 8C13 which may be analyzed [parsing the notification to determine information relevant to performing one or more actions] using Natural Language Understanding (NLU), Natural Language Processing (NLP), and/or Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI/LLM), patient medical history data, laboratory results, and medication details 8C14, are integrated into scoring metrics at each data point and during each question/response interaction. If no alert is deemed necessary 8C19, the EMR updates with the current patient data score, concluding the interaction. If an alert-level medical event is detected 8C17, a notification is sent to the patient management system portal. The method concludes with the transmission and update of the patient's data in their EMR 8C18 [based on the information contained in the notification, causing one or more actions to be performed, wherein the one or more actions comprise one or more of: executing one or more operations in at least one software system of the one or more software systems, transmitting a synthesized voice communication to one or more stakeholders associated with the notification, and storing records associated with the notification to a database].)
As per claim 2,
Holes discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Holes further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: responsive to receiving the notification, transmitting the parsed information to a machine learning engine; receiving, from the machine learning engine, instructions for performing the one or more actions; and performing the one or more actions based on the received instructions:
(Paragraphs [0111]-[0114] of Holes. The teaching describes a method implemented by a system 8C. The method commences with a patient's consultation with a medical doctor to confirm or dismiss a potential diagnosis 8C2. Upon confirmation of a diagnosis 8C5, the physician may prescribe medications 8C7, initiate a treatment regimen, which may include medical assessments, and/or activate remote patient monitoring. Each engagement with the medical device generates biological sensor readings and corresponding scoring metrics 8C11. Additional inputs, including patient assessments 8C12, patient messages [responsive to receiving the notification] 8C13 which may be analyzed using Natural Language Understanding (NLU), Natural Language Processing (NLP), and/or Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI/LLM) [transmitting the parsed information to a machine learning engine], patient medical history data, laboratory results, and medication details 8C14, are integrated into scoring metrics at each data point and during each question/response interaction. If no alert is deemed necessary 8C19, the EMR updates with the current patient data score, concluding the interaction. If an alert-level medical event is detected 8C17, a notification is sent to the patient management system portal. The method concludes with the transmission and update of the patient's data in their EMR 8C18 [receiving, from the machine learning engine, instructions for performing the one or more actions; and performing the one or more actions based on the received instructions].)
As per claim 3,
Holes discloses the limitations of claim 2.
Holes further discloses wherein the machine learning engine comprises a large language model:
(Paragraphs [0111]-[0114] of Holes. The teaching describes a method implemented by a system 8C. The method commences with a patient's consultation with a medical doctor to confirm or dismiss a potential diagnosis 8C2. Upon confirmation of a diagnosis 8C5, the physician may prescribe medications 8C7, initiate a treatment regimen, which may include medical assessments, and/or activate remote patient monitoring. Each engagement with the medical device generates biological sensor readings and corresponding scoring metrics 8C11. Additional inputs, including patient assessments 8C12, patient messages 8C13 which may be analyzed using Natural Language Understanding (NLU), Natural Language Processing (NLP), and/or Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI/LLM) [machine learning engine comprises a large language model], patient medical history data, laboratory results, and medication details 8C14, are integrated into scoring metrics at each data point and during each question/response interaction. If no alert is deemed necessary 8C19, the EMR updates with the current patient data score, concluding the interaction. If an alert-level medical event is detected 8C17, a notification is sent to the patient management system portal. The method concludes with the transmission and update of the patient's data in their EMR 8C18.)
As per claim 4,
Holes discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Holes further discloses wherein the one or more communication sources comprise at least one of a telephone system, an email system, a text messaging system, and a proprietary messaging application:
(Paragraphs [0111]-[0114] of Holes. The teaching describes a method implemented by a system 8C. The method commences with a patient's consultation with a medical doctor to confirm or dismiss a potential diagnosis 8C2. Upon confirmation of a diagnosis 8C5, the physician may prescribe medications 8C7, initiate a treatment regimen, which may include medical assessments, and/or activate remote patient monitoring. Each engagement with the medical device generates biological sensor readings and corresponding scoring metrics 8C11. Additional inputs, including patient assessments 8C12, patient messages [one or more communication sources comprise at least one of a telephone system, an email system, a text messaging system, and a proprietary messaging application] 8C13 which may be analyzed using Natural Language Understanding (NLU), Natural Language Processing (NLP), and/or Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI/LLM), patient medical history data, laboratory results, and medication details 8C14, are integrated into scoring metrics at each data point and during each question/response interaction. If no alert is deemed necessary 8C19, the EMR updates with the current patient data score, concluding the interaction. If an alert-level medical event is detected 8C17, a notification is sent to the patient management system portal. The method concludes with the transmission and update of the patient's data in their EMR 8C18.)
As per claim 5,
Holes discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Holes further discloses wherein the one or more software systems comprise at least one of a scheduling system, a client management system, a caregiver management system, a billing system, an authorization system, a payroll system, a timecard system, and a compliance tracking system:
(Paragraph [0016] of Holes. The teaching describes a patient can be notified of an urgent medical situation, and, through cognitive automation and artificial intelligence, a person can be notified automatically of the medical situation in an easy-to-understand manner, which explains to the patient what the situation means to them and what type of response is appropriate. As an example, a high AIC reading might result in a notification to the patient that the patient should eat healthier, stay on their medication, if they are taking any, and schedule a visit with their provider [a scheduling system], if necessary.)
As per claim 8,
Holes discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Holes further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: determining that additional information is needed to perform the one or more actions; generating a request for the additional information; and transmitting the request to at least one of the stakeholder and a software system of the one or more software systems:
(Paragraphs [0111]-[0114] and Figure 8C of Holes. The teaching describes a method implemented by a system 8C. The method commences with a patient's consultation with a medical doctor to confirm or dismiss a potential diagnosis 8C2. Upon confirmation of a diagnosis 8C5, the physician may prescribe medications 8C7, initiate a treatment regimen, which may include medical assessments, and/or activate remote patient monitoring. Each engagement with the medical device generates biological sensor readings and corresponding scoring metrics 8C11. Additional inputs, including patient assessments 8C12, patient messages 8C13 which may be analyzed using Natural Language Understanding (NLU), Natural Language Processing (NLP), and/or Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI/LLM), patient medical history data, laboratory results, and medication details 8C14, are integrated into scoring metrics at each data point and during each question/response interaction. If no alert is deemed necessary 8C19, the EMR updates with the current patient data score, concluding the interaction. If an alert-level medical event is detected 8C17, a notification is sent to the patient management system portal. The method concludes with the transmission and update of the patient's data in their EMR 8C18. Element 8C9 indicates that the patient confirms remote patient monitoring settings and parameters for patient regimen. This is construed as a determination that additional information is needed to perform the one or more actions; generating a request for the additional information; and transmitting the request to at least one of the stakeholder and a software system of the one or more software systems)
As per claim 9,
Holes discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Holes further discloses wherein the stakeholder is one of a caregiver, a client, a client family member, a client guardian, an agency manager, and a payer:
(Paragraphs [0111]-[0114] of Holes. The teaching describes a method implemented by a system 8C. The method commences with a patient's consultation with a medical doctor to confirm or dismiss a potential diagnosis 8C2. Upon confirmation of a diagnosis 8C5, the physician may prescribe medications 8C7, initiate a treatment regimen, which may include medical assessments, and/or activate remote patient monitoring. Each engagement with the medical device generates biological sensor readings and corresponding scoring metrics 8C11. Additional inputs, including patient assessments 8C12, patient messages [a client] 8C13 which may be analyzed using Natural Language Understanding (NLU), Natural Language Processing (NLP), and/or Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI/LLM), patient medical history data, laboratory results, and medication details 8C14, are integrated into scoring metrics at each data point and during each question/response interaction. If no alert is deemed necessary 8C19, the EMR updates with the current patient data score, concluding the interaction. If an alert-level medical event is detected 8C17, a notification is sent to the patient management system portal. The method concludes with the transmission and update of the patient's data in their EMR 8C18.)
As per claim 10,
Holes discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Holes further discloses wherein the one or more actions comprise at least one of: managing authorized caregiving hours for a client, managing timecard exceptions, advocating for a client, coordinating care for a client, coordinating benefits for a caregiver, documenting client interactions, ensuring caregiver work compliance, managing a crisis, and supervising staff:
(Paragraphs [0111]-[0114] of Holes. The teaching describes a method implemented by a system 8C. The method commences with a patient's consultation with a medical doctor to confirm or dismiss a potential diagnosis 8C2. Upon confirmation of a diagnosis 8C5, the physician may prescribe medications 8C7, initiate a treatment regimen, which may include medical assessments, and/or activate remote patient monitoring. Each engagement with the medical device generates biological sensor readings and corresponding scoring metrics 8C11. Additional inputs, including patient assessments 8C12, patient messages [documenting client interactions] 8C13 which may be analyzed using Natural Language Understanding (NLU), Natural Language Processing (NLP), and/or Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI/LLM), patient medical history data, laboratory results, and medication details 8C14, are integrated into scoring metrics at each data point and during each question/response interaction. If no alert is deemed necessary 8C19, the EMR updates with the current patient data score, concluding the interaction. If an alert-level medical event is detected 8C17, a notification is sent to the patient management system portal. The method concludes with the transmission and update of the patient's data in their EMR 8C18.)
As per claim 11,
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
As per claim 12,
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 2. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
As per claim 13,
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 3. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
As per claim 14,
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 4. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
As per claim 15,
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 5. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
As per claim 18,
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 8. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
As per claim 19,
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 9. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
As per claim 20,
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holes in view of Siddique et al. (US 2016/0210602; herein referred to as Siddique).
As per claim 6,
Holes discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Holes further discloses wherein parsing the notification comprises: performing natural language processing on the text document to extract the information relevant to performing the one or more actions:
(Paragraphs [0111]-[0114] of Holes. The teaching describes a method implemented by a system 8C. The method commences with a patient's consultation with a medical doctor to confirm or dismiss a potential diagnosis 8C2. Upon confirmation of a diagnosis 8C5, the physician may prescribe medications 8C7, initiate a treatment regimen, which may include medical assessments, and/or activate remote patient monitoring. Each engagement with the medical device generates biological sensor readings and corresponding scoring metrics 8C11. Additional inputs, including patient assessments 8C12, patient messages 8C13 which may be analyzed using Natural Language Understanding (NLU), Natural Language Processing (NLP) [performing natural language processing on the text document to extract the information relevant to performing the one or more actions], and/or Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI/LLM), patient medical history data, laboratory results, and medication details 8C14, are integrated into scoring metrics at each data point and during each question/response interaction. If no alert is deemed necessary 8C19, the EMR updates with the current patient data score, concluding the interaction. If an alert-level medical event is detected 8C17, a notification is sent to the patient management system portal. The method concludes with the transmission and update of the patient's data in their EMR 8C18.)
Holes does not explicitly teach wherein parsing the notification comprises: performing speech-to-text processing on a voice communication to generate a text document.
However, Siddique teaches parsing notifications by performing speech-to-text processing on a voice communication to generate a text document:
(Paragraph [0301] of Siddique. The teaching describes a ‘Centralized Communication Portal’ (CCP) which provides users with access to all emails (work, home, web based, local application based), voice messages, text messages, VoIP messages, chat messages, phone calls, faxes and any other messages/calls available through electronic messaging services. The CCP may take the form of a web based software or a mobile device software and/or both and/or local application for use on a computing machine or a mobile device or a landline phone. The CCP is equipped with text-to-speech and speech-to-text conversion so that it is possible for users to access emails in the form of voice messages, and voice messages in text format, in exemplary embodiment. The user can set the display name and number or email address of outgoing phone calls, emails, SMS or the system can determine these automatically based on factors such as who the message is for or what the context of the message is, etc. The system only lets the users set the phone number or email address of outgoing messages if the user owns these phone numbers and email addresses. In an exemplary embodiment, the owner ship of a phone number or email address is established by posing a challenge question to the user the answer to which is sent to the phone number or email address.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to add to the communication platform of Holes, the speech-to-text functionality of Siddique. Between the prior arts of Holes and Siddique, each element of the claim language is read upon, although not necessarily in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely performs as it would have separately. Given that speech-to-text functions in Siddique are described in a way that assumes that the reader is familiar with the technology, it is reasonable to conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination would have been predictable. Accordingly such a combination of references would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 16,
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 6. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holes in view of Bauer. (US 2011/0072367).
As per claim 7,
Holes discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Holes does not explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise: generating a visual avatar configured to interact with the stakeholder; and causing the visual avatar to present information to the stakeholder related to the one or more actions performed.
However, Bauer teaches: generating a visual avatar configured to interact with the stakeholder; and causing the visual avatar to present information to the stakeholder related to the one or more actions performed:
(Paragraph [0010] of Bauer. The teaching describes a digital form-centric communication, expression and display are provided for a multi-user online simulation that provides a virtual reality for participants using avatars to allow real time interaction between and among participants based on location in the virtual space. According to one embodiment of the invention, a method of providing a medical consultation in a virtual environment includes: providing an avatar representing a medical professional and a patient; providing an appointment room; allowing the medical professional access to patent medical information through the virtual environment; and depicting visual information regarding the patient's condition in the virtual environment. The method may further include establishing voice communications between the patient and the medical professional through the virtual environment. It may still further include presenting, based on medical information associated with the patient and medical treatment information provided by the medical professional, a predictive visual display relating to the patient's health and treatment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to add to the teaching of Holes, the avatar based interaction between patient and physician as seen in Bauer. Paragraph [0159] Bauer teaches that this medical avatar process provides interactive visualization of “unseen” medical conditions(cholesterol, blood pressure, etc) may be presented through the virtual environment interaction with the user's medical information. This functionality would have improved the mere informational approach to patient care that the communication platform in Holes would have provided otherwise. One of ordinary skill in the art would have added to the teaching of Holes, the teaching of Bauer based on this incentive without yielding unexpected results.
As per claim 17,
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 7. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A NEWTON whose telephone number is (313)446-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM (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, PETER H. CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/CHAD A NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681