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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “module is configured to” in claims 16 and 17, and “module for” in claims 1, 8, and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
Claim limitation “module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Typically, a device, module, platform performing the computer-based functions is linked to software, processing, and/or memory. The written description fails to provide the justified links for the functions other . Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The provided specification does not have any written description that demonstrates possession of the claimed invention. Please refer to the 35 112(b) justification above. The structure of the “module” is not described in the specification.
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.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are within the four statutory categories. However, as will be shown below, claims 1-15
are nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are representative of the inventive concept and recite:
Claim 1
A digital health engagement platform for women, comprising:
a computer readable medium including instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the computer readable medium to carry out steps of
accessing a digital health engagement platform;
at least one module for performing health risk scoring, care plan management, care support, client reporting or interoperability;
a Bluetooth enabled medical device for tracking and logging specific data that is required to monitor overall health of a user, wherein the Bluetooth enabled medical device is in communication with the computer readable medium;
an index tool for measuring non-medical drivers of health, the index tool including a multi-question set that is pushed directly from a client portal to an application;
wherein the platform integrates with an electronic health record system.
*Claim 8 recites similar limitations as claim 1, but for a method
Claim 15
A system for digital women's health engagement, comprising:
a smartphone device configured to access a digital health engagement platform;
a health risk module for assessing potential health risks;
a care plan module for generating personalized care plans;
a care support module for facilitating creation and management of a digital care circle;
a client reporting module for generating reports and analytics;
an interoperability module for enabling data exchange with external systems;
and a health index tool for analyzing non-medical drivers of health.
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because the
highlighted components can practically be performed by the human mind (in this case, the process of
performing, tracking, logging, measuring, assessing, generating, facilitating, integrating, and analyzing)) or using pen and paper. Other than reciting generic computer components/functions such as “platform” , “computer readable medium including instructions which, when executed by a processor”, “module”, “application”, “system”, nothing in the claims precludes the highlighted portions from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components/functions, then it falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Additionally, the recitation of facilitating, enabling, integrating, and accessing also covers behavioral or interactions between people (i.e. the computer), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), hence the claim falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite additional subject matter which further narrows or
defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims.
.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims
recite the following additional limitations:
Claim 1 recites: “platform”, “a computer readable medium including instructions which, when executed by a processor”, “device”, “module”, “Bluetooth enabled medical device is in communication with the computer readable medium”, “pushed directly from a client portal to an application”
Claim 15 recites: “system”, “device”, “module”
In particular, the additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other
than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations
are recited as being performed by a “platform”, “a computer readable medium including instructions which, when executed by a processor”, “device”, “module”, and “system”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the
recitation of “Bluetooth enabled medical device is in communication with the computer readable medium” and “pushed directly from a client portal to an application”
Dependent claim 3 recites monitor
Dependent claims 4 and 5 recites module
Dependent claim 9 recites device and monitor
Dependent claim 11 recites machine learning algorithm
Dependent claim 16 recites module, Bluetooth, and device
Dependent claim 17 recites module
Dependent claim 20 recites video and application
In particular, the additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other
than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations
are recited as being performed by a “monitor”, “module”, “device”, “machine learning algorithm”, and “application”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The machine learning model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how it functions.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the
recitation of “Bluetooth” and “video”
Dependent claims 2, 6-7, 10, 12-14, and 18-19 do not include additional elements beyond those already recited in Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and dependent claims 3-5, 9, 11, 16-17, and 20, and hence do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, machine learning model, or any other technology. Their collective function merely provides conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract
idea into a practical application, the additional elements: A system in claim 1; amount to no more than
mere instructions to apply an exception to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations,
other than the abstract idea per se, 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 the recitation of:
“Bluetooth enabled medical device is in communication with the computer readable medium”, which refers to sending/receiving data (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
“pushed directly from a client portal to an application”, which refers to data being sent by an application or a website to a user’s device (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Bluetooth, which refers to a standard for short-range wireless interconnection of mobile phones and other electronic devices (Para 0060, Shwartz(US 20210110652 A1) discloses: “In particular, the cell phone 650 and the kiosk 630 are each able to communicate with the transaction server 620 via the wireless communication network 602, which can be a conventional Bluetooth network or other suitable wireless network.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Video, which refers to recording, reproducing, and broadcasting visual images (Para 0356, Decenzo(US 20230216864 A1) discloses: “By way of reference, conventional video cameras have the ability to stream digital video in a variety of formats and over a variety of networks.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Dependent claims 2, 6-7, 10, 12-14, and 18-19 do not include additional elements beyond those already recited in Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and dependent claims 3-5, 9, 11, 16-17, and 20. Therefore, they are not deemed to be significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the limitations of the aforementioned dependent claims amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or do not recite and additional elements not already recited in independent claim 1 hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
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.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 is being unpatentable over Whannel(US20220375559A1)
in view of Cha(US20200005900A1).
Claim 1
Whannel discloses:
A digital health engagement platform for women, comprising: a computer readable medium including instructions which, when executed by a processor(Para 0081, Whannel discloses computer readable medium executed by a processor), cause the computer readable medium to carry out steps of accessing a digital health engagement platform(Para 0078, Whannel discloses patient engaging(accessing) with the platform); at least one module for performing (Para 0025, Whannel discloses a suggested care plan), care support(Para 0077, Whannel discloses patient specific goals which can be considered care support), client reporting(Para 0067, Whannel discloses reporting) or interoperability; a Bluetooth(Para 0084, Whannel discloses Bluetooth) enabled medical device for tracking and logging specific data that is required to monitor overall health of a user(Para 0082, Whannel discloses a communicatively coupled medical devices which provide data for tracking for assessment), wherein the Bluetooth enabled medical device is in communication with the computer readable medium(Para 0082, Whannel discloses medical device communicatively coupled with a server which can be a computer readable medium); (Para 0127, Whannel discloses pushing a report) directly from a client portal(Para 0118, Whannel discloses patient portal) to an application(Para 0081, Whannel discloses application server); wherein the platform integrates with an electronic health record system(Para 0072, Whannel discloses the platform can access a patient record).
Whannel does not explicitly disclose:
health risk scoring
index tool for measuring non-medical drivers of health
Cha discloses:
health risk scoring(Para 0014, Cha discloses risk scoring)
index tool(Figure 1, #105, Cha discloses what can be considered an index tool) for measuring non-medical drivers of health(Para 0008, Cha discloses measured risk information including demographics)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the patient data management platform of Whannel to add
health risk scoring and index tool for measuring non-medical drivers of health, as taught by Cha. One of
ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to identify risks that may need to be managed medically to improve patient outcomes, but in this case, for methods for predicting risk of renal decline(Para 0007, Cha discloses: “Accordingly, there is a need for improved predictive modeling systems and methods that could aid clinicians in their assessment of the risk of renal function decline and/or progression to ESRD.”).
Claim 2
Whannel discloses:
The digital health engagement platform of claim 1, wherein the platform is configured for improving the health and care coordination of women suffering from high blood pressure(Para 0073, Whannel discloses blood pressure outside of a range), diabetes(Para0130, Whannel discloses diabetes) and mental health conditions (stress and anxiety)(Para 0134, Whannel discloses mental health) from pre-conception to menopause.
Claim 3
Whannel discloses:
The digital health engagement platform of claim 1, wherein the Bluetooth enabled medical device includes a blood pressure monitor(Para 0115, Whannel discloses blood pressure monitor), continuous glucose monitor(Para 0115, Whannel discloses a blood glucose monitor) and stress monitor(Para 0115, Whannel discloses a heart rate monitor which can be considered a monitor for stress).
Claim 4
Whannel discloses:
The digital health engagement platform of claim 1 including a (Para 0004, Whannel discloses a patient data management system which can be a care plan management module), a care support module(Para 0004, Whannel discloses a patient data management system which can be a care support module), a client reporting module(Para 0004, Whannel discloses a patient data management system which can be a client reporting module),
Whannel does not explicitly disclose:
health risk scoring module
interoperability module
Cha discloses:
health risk scoring module(Figure 1, Cha discloses a health risk scoring module)
interoperability module(Para 0184, Cha discloses and interface (#580) which can act as an interoperability module)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the patient data management platform of Whannel to add
health risk scoring module and interoperability module, as taught by Cha. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to identify risks that may need to be managed medically to improve patient outcomes, but in this case, for methods for predicting risk of renal decline(Para 0007, Cha discloses: “Accordingly, there is a need for improved predictive modeling systems and methods that could aid clinicians in their assessment of the risk of renal function decline and/or progression to ESRD.”).
Claim 5
Whannel discloses:
The digital health engagement platform of claim 4 wherein the care support module facilitates creation and management of a personalized digital care circle(Para 0004, Whannel discloses a patient data management system which can be a care support module).
Claim 6
Whannel discloses:
The digital health engagement platform of claim 5 wherein the digital care circle includes roles for a physician(Para 0068, Whannel discloses physician), a community health worker(Para 0081, Whannel discloses a clinician), a midwife(Para 0081, Whannel discloses a clinician), and a therapist(Para 0081, Whannel discloses a clinician).
Claim 7
Whannel discloses:
The digital health engagement platform of claim 6 wherein the platform implements different levels of access for care circle members based on a care circle member role type(Para 0118, Whannel discloses role based access to the platform).
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites similar limitations as claim 1. See claim 1 analysis.
Claim 9
Whannel discloses:
The method of claim 8, wherein the Bluetooth enabled medical device includes a blood pressure monitor(Para 0115, Whannel discloses blood pressure monitor).
Claim 10
Whannel does not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 8, further comprising generating a personalized care plan based on the health risk scoring and the measured non-medical drivers of health.
Cha discloses:
The method of claim 8, further comprising generating a personalized care plan based on the health risk scoring(Para 0014, Cha discloses risk scoring) and the measured non-medical drivers of health(Para 0008, Cha discloses measured risk information including demographics).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the patient data management platform of Whannel to add
on the health risk scoring and the measured non-medical drivers of health, as taught by Cha. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to identify risks that may need to be managed medically to improve patient outcomes, but in this case, for methods for predicting risk of renal decline(Para 0007, Cha discloses: “Accordingly, there is a need for improved predictive modeling systems and methods that could aid clinicians in their assessment of the risk of renal function decline and/or progression to ESRD.”).
Claim 11
Whannel does not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 10, wherein generating the personalized care plan includes utilizing machine learning algorithms to analyze the tracked data and measured non-medical drivers of health.
Cha discloses:
The method of claim 10, wherein generating the personalized care plan includes utilizing machine learning algorithms(Para 0099, Cha discloses machine learning model) to analyze the tracked data(Para 0008, Cha discloses vital signs which can be tracked data) and measured non-medical drivers of health(Para 0008, Cha discloses measured risk information including demographics).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the patient data management platform of Whannel to add
machine learning algorithms to analyze the tracked data and measured non-medical drivers of health, as taught by Cha. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to measure and analyze non-medical drivers of health to better address any health risks that may need to be managed medically to improve patient outcomes, but in this case, for methods for predicting risk of renal decline(Para 0007, Cha discloses: “Accordingly, there is a need for improved predictive modeling systems and methods that could aid clinicians in their assessment of the risk of renal function decline and/or progression to ESRD.”).
Claim 12
Whannel discloses:
The method of claim 8, further comprising facilitating creation and management of a personalized digital care circle within the digital health engagement platform. (Para 0004, Whannel discloses a patient data management system which can be a care support module)
Claim 13
Whannel discloses:
The method of claim 12, wherein the digital care circle includes roles for a physician(Para 0068, Whannel discloses physician), a community health worker(Para 0081, Whannel discloses a clinician), a midwife(Para 0081, Whannel discloses a clinician), and a therapist(Para 0081, Whannel discloses a clinician.
Claim 14
Whannel discloses:
The method of claim 13 including implementing different levels of access for care circle members based on their role type(Para 0118, Whannel discloses role based access to the platform).
Claim 15
Whannel discloses:
A system for digital women's health engagement, comprising: a smartphone device configured to access a digital health engagement platform(Para 0115, Whannel discloses a smartphone coupled to the patient data management platform); (Para 0004, Whannel discloses a patient data management system which can be a care plan management module) for generating personalized care plans(Para 0025, Whannel discloses a suggested care plan); a care support module for facilitating creation and management of a digital care circle(Para 0004, Whannel discloses a patient data management system which can be a care support module); a client reporting module(Para 0004, Whannel discloses a patient data management system which can be a client reporting module) for generating reports and analytics(Para 0105, Whannel report generation); an interoperability module(Para 0004, Whannel discloses a patient data management system which can be an interoperability module) for enabling data exchange with external systems;
Whannel does not explicitly disclose:
a health risk module for assessing potential health risks
and a health index tool for analyzing non-medical drivers of health
Cha discloses:
a health risk module for assessing potential health risks(Figure 1, Cha discloses a health risk scoring module)
and a health index tool(Figure 1, #105, Cha discloses what can be considered an index tool) for analyzing non-medical drivers of health(Para 0008, Cha discloses measured risk information including demographics)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the patient data management platform of Whannel to add
Claim 16
Whannel discloses:
The system of claim 15, wherein the health risk module is configured to analyze data collected through the smartphone device(Para 0115, Whannel discloses smart phones for health monitoring) and a connected Bluetooth(Para 0084, Whannel discloses Bluetooth) enabled medical device(Para 0082, Whannel discloses a communicatively coupled medical devices) to assess potential health risks(Para 0008, Cha discloses measured risk information).
Whannel does not explicitly disclose:
assess potential health risks
Cha discloses:
assess potential health risks(Para 0008, Cha discloses measured risk information)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the patient data management platform of Whannel to add assessment of potential health risks, as taught by Cha. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to measure any health risks that may need to be managed medically to improve patient outcomes, but in this case, for methods for predicting risk of renal decline(Para 0007, Cha discloses: “Accordingly, there is a need for improved predictive modeling systems and methods that could aid clinicians in their assessment of the risk of renal function decline and/or progression to ESRD.”).
Claim 17
Whannel discloses:
The system of claim 15, wherein the care support module is configured to implement different levels of access for care circle members based on their role type(Para 0118, Whannel discloses role based access to the platform).
Claim 18
Whannel discloses:
The system of claim 17, wherein the role types include Care Team, Community Level, and Friend Level(Para 0118, Whannel discloses role based access to the platform).
Claim 19
Whannel does not explicitly disclose:
The system of claim 18, wherein members with a Care Team role type have access to all tracked data, demographic information, and assessment risk levels.
Cha discloses:
The system of claim 18, wherein members with a Care Team role type have access to all tracked data(Para 0008, Cha discloses vitals), demographic information(Para 0008, Cha discloses demographics), and assessment risk levels(Para 0008, Cha discloses measured risk information).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the patient data management platform of Whannel to add tracked data, demographic information, and assessment risk levels, as taught by Cha. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to access this information to better assess the patient that may need to be managed medically to improve outcomes, but in this case, for methods for predicting risk of renal decline(Para 0007, Cha discloses: “Accordingly, there is a need for improved predictive modeling systems and methods that could aid clinicians in their assessment of the risk of renal function decline and/or progression to ESRD.”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 is being unpatentable over Whannel(US20220375559A1)
in view of Cha(US20200005900A1) and Madhavan(US20150310183A1).
Claim 20
Whannel and Cha do not explicitly disclose:
The system of claim 15 wherein the system implements video-based visits (telemedicine) through an integrated video tool within the user application.
Madhavan discloses:
The system of claim 15 wherein the system implements video-based visits (telemedicine)(Para 0036, Madhavan discloses telemedicine) through an integrated video tool(Para 0147, Madhavan discloses video conferencing) within the user application(Para 0036, Madhavan discloses application).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the patient data management platform of Whannel to add telemedicine, as taught by Madhavan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to provide healthcare delivery remotely to better improve patient outcomes, but in this case, for a system of telemedicine components(Para 0005, Madhavan discloses: “Therefore, a long-standing and unaddressed need exists for improved telemedicine components, devices, and applications to allow physicians to efficiently and effectively provide medical treatment to patients in geographically remote locations.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gupta(US20120191480A1) discloses a social networking-based health management platform
Derrick(US20210319887A1) discloses a method for treating diabetes informed by social determinants of health
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERYL GOPAL PATEL whose telephone number is (703)756-1990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30am to 2:30pm PST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/S.G.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685