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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed applications 18/893,819 filed 09/23/2024, 18/357,031 filed 07/21/2023, and 63/414,831 filed 10/10/2022, under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
The instant applicant is a continuation in part of application 18/893,819. The subject matter recited in claims 1-20 is directed to the newly added subject matter in this continuation in part application. Accordingly, the effective filing date for pending claims 1-20 is the filing date of this application, 03/03/2025.
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 2-3 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.
Claims 2 and 3 each recite “wherein transmitting the trigger event message is in response to completion of…” Each of these claims are dependent on claim 1. Claim 1 recites “subscribe to the event broker…to listen for a trigger event message” and “receive an electronic indication of the trigger event message.” However, there is no specific step of “transmitting” or a system component configured to “transmit” the “trigger event message.” Therefore, the antecedent basis for these wherein clauses is unclear and indefinite. For examination purposes, the limitations will be treated as “wherein the trigger event message is related to completion of…”
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 2A Prong One
Claims 1 recites subscribe to the event broker, based on a publish and subscribe model, to listen for a trigger event message; receive an indication of the trigger event message corresponding to a trigger event, the trigger event produced, and the trigger event message associated with a patient identified with patient context data, a therapy for the patient identified with a therapy identifier, and a sponsor of the therapy identified with a sponsor identifier; determine, based on the sponsor identifier, the patient context data, and the therapy identifier, whether the patient engagement service is available and supported for the sponsor; determine a delivery time of a message and a transmission mode of the message, in response to determining that the patient engagement service is available and supported for the sponsor; and initiate the patient engagement service, wherein initiating the patient engagement service comprises initiating transmission of the message to the patient identified with the patient context data.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass managing interactions between people, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, the claims encompass a user subscribing to a service to identify trigger event messages, receiving a trigger event message associated with a patient context, therapy for the patient, and a sponsor of the therapy, determine whether a patient engagement service is available and supported, determine a time and mode to deliver a message and sending the message to the patient. Such manual steps encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 2-20 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea. For example, claims 2-3, 6-7, 11-15 and 18-20 further expand on transmitting the message, which is part of the abstract idea as identified above. Claims 4-5 and 13-17 further expand on the patient context data, which is part of the abstract idea as identified above. Claims 8-10 further expand on patient engagement and the sponsor, which are part of the abstract idea as identified above. As explained above, these manual steps encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas along with adding elements similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea, and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, along with insignificant, extra-solution data gathering activity.
Claims 1-20, directly or indirectly, recite the following additional elements at a high level of generality and merely utilized as tools to implement the abstract idea:
Claim 1:
a processor; and a memory device including instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operation.
implementing an event broker and an event subscriber on a microservice platform, the microservice platform hosted, at least in part, on the server system, wherein the event subscriber is programmatically configured.
use a machine learning-based analytics engine.
Claims 14, 16, 17:
used as inputs to a next best action machine-learning algorithm.
The processor and memory device are identified as generic computer components. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “event broker,” “event subscriber” implemented on a “microservice platform” hosted on a “server system” encompasses software implemented on a generic computer component. The written description discloses that the recited computer components encompass generic components including “a compute device may be embodied as a personal computer, server, smartphone, a mobile compute device, a smart appliance, an in- vehicle compute system (e.g., a navigation system), a self-contained device having an outer case, shell, etc., or other device or system capable of performing the described function” (see paragraph 0176). Similarly, the written description does not specifically describe a “machine learning-based analytics engine.” However, an “analytics engine” is described and the written description discloses that “compute node 00 may be embodied as any type of engine, device, or collection of devices capable of performing various compute functions” (see paragraph 0178). As set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(d) “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1-20, directly or indirectly, recite the following additional elements at a high level of generality, involving no more that extra-solution data gathering and transmitting activity:
Claim 1:
receiving and electronic indication…produced by a microservice provided by the server system that published an event to the event broker.
These additional elements are recited at a high degree of generality and are merely involved in insignificant extra solution data gathering and transmitting of data over a generic computer network. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant, extra-solution activity, such as insignificant acquisition and data transmission, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”).
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity (e.g. transmitting and receiving data over a computer network) has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Storing and retrieving information in memory has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of a general-purpose computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
Additionally, the aforementioned additional elements, considered in combination, do not provide an improvement to a technical field or provide a technical improvement to a technical problem. These additional elements merely carry out the abstract idea through data collection, data processing, data communication, and data storage. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry, US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0132106 in view of Ptashek, US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0161535 and further in view of Connely, US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0121843.
As per claim 1, Perry teaches a server system for enrolling patients into a patient engagement service, the server system comprising: a processor (see paragraph 0086; programmable processor); and a memory device including instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (see paragraph 0090; processor receives instructions from memory) comprising: implementing an event broker and an event subscriber hosted, at least in part, on the server system (see paragraph 0037; product request application server executes web applications and health care product request applications, event broker and event subscriber encompassing applications implemented at the application servers), wherein the event subscriber is programmatically configured to: subscribe to the event broker, based on a publish and subscribe model, to listen for a trigger event message (see paragraphs 0037 and 0054; server hosted applications perform functions of receiving, obtaining, modifying, and filtering patient data, health care product data, and health care product replacement program data, generating, outputting, and tracking health care product request applications. Subscribe to event broker, based on publish and subscribe model to listen for trigger event message encompassing patient information entered into system causing trigger signal to be generated and sent to patient assistance request engine); receive an electronic indication of the trigger event message corresponding to a trigger event, the trigger event provided by the server system that published an event to the event broker, and the trigger event message associated with a patient identified with patient context data, a therapy for the patient identified with a therapy identifier, and a sponsor of the therapy identified with a sponsor identifier (see paragraphs 0054-0055; trigger event message corresponds to a trigger event that includes or extracts patient information, treatment information, and sponsor information in the form of supplier of the product for the updated treatment – paragraph 0062); determine, based on the sponsor identifier, the patient context data, and the therapy identifier, whether the patient engagement service is available and supported for the sponsor (see paragraph 0058; extracted data used to identify patient eligibility to participate in patient assistance program offered by the health care product supplier); use an engine, in response to determining that the patient engagement service is available and supported for the sponsor (see paragraph 0060; if patient information meets eligibility requirements in corresponding patient assistance program, the patient is identified by the engine as eligible for participation in the program); and initiate the patient engagement service, wherein initiating the patient engagement service comprises initiating transmission of the message to the patient identified with the patient context data. (see paragraph 0032; system sends various notifications to the individuals including the health care provider, patient and product supplier).
Perry does not explicitly teach implementing steps with a microservice platform. Perry does not explicitly teach using a machine learning-based analytics engine to determine a delivery time of a message and a transmission mode of the message.
Ptashek teaches using a machine learning-based analytics engine (see paragraph 0025; uses a machine-learning operation to determine patient preferences) to determine a delivery time of a message and a transmission mode of the message (see paragraphs 0059 and 0067; patient preferences include message time and code of communication). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to use such communication preferences for communicating with patients in the system of Perry with the motivation of improving communication efficacy (see paragraph 0025 of Ptashek).
Connely teaches a microservice platform, hosted, at least in part, on a server system, and producing trigger events (see paragraphs 0155 and 0162; micro-service system facilitates communication of patient data between systems; paragraph 0049; micro-services architecture includes multiple databases and web servers associates certain trigger events with a corresponding action). Connely further teaches patient data communication related to healthcare eligibility information (see paragraph 0184).
As per claim 2, Perry, Ptashek, and Connely teaches the system of claim 1. Perry further teaches the trigger event message is related to a completion of a platform enrollment event (see paragraph 0066; trigger event message being a form reflecting platform enrollment send to supplier).
As per claim 3, Perry, Ptashek, and Connely teaches the system of claim 1. Perry further teaches the trigger event message is related to a completion of a triage event (see paragraph 0046; list of patients eligible for participation in assistance program being a triage event).
As per claim 4, Perry, Ptashek, and Connely teaches the system of claim 1. Perry further teaches the patient context data includes a patient identifier (see paragraph 0054; trigger event can be data entry including patient identifying information).
As per claim 5, Perry, Ptashek, and Connely teaches the system of claim 4. Perry does not explicitly teach patient identifier is a unique identifier assigned to the patient by a healthcare system or a government. Connely further teaches patient identifier is a unique identifier assigned to the patient by a healthcare system or a government (see paragraph 0173; explains that patient IDs matching establishes the patient being the same vs. not matching, indicating different patients). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to implement unique patient identifiers in the system of Perry with the motivation of providing more efficient collection and analysis of patient data (see paragraph 0007 of Connely).
As per claim 6, Perry, Ptashek, and Connely teaches the system of claim 1. Perry further teaches initiating the patient engagement service comprises transmitting a message to a partner system, the message to cause the partner system to perform an operation related to the patient engagement service (see paragraph 0068; message is sent to health care product supplier causing the supplier to ship the health care product).
As per claim 7, Perry, Ptashek, and Connely teaches the system of claim 1. Perry further teaches the patient engagement service includes transmitting a message to a third party, the third party providing a good or service to support the patient engagement service (see paragraph 0068; message is sent to health care product supplier causing the supplier to ship the health care product).
As per claim 9, Perry, Ptashek, and Connely teaches the system of claim 1. Perry further teaches the sponsor is a drug manufacturer (see paragraph 0031 health care product manufacturer/supplier).
As per claim 10, Perry, Ptashek, and Connely teaches the system of claim 1. Perry further teaches determining, based on the sponsor identifier, the patient context data, and the therapy identifier, whether the patient engagement service is available and supported for the sponsor comprises querying a data store for patient engagement services in which the patient is eligible (see paragraph 0058; patient assistance request engine accesses product program database to identify products/services for patient).
As per claim 13, Perry, Ptashek, and Connely teaches the system of claim 1. Perry does not explicitly teach the patient context data includes patient historical data, patient preferences, and patient behaviors, and wherein the delivery time of the message is determined using the patient context data. Ptashek further teaches the patient context data includes patient historical data, patient preferences, and patient behaviors, and wherein the delivery time of the message is determined using the patient context data (see paragraph 0059; context based on patient preferences, including responsiveness, which indicates patient history and patient behavior, used to determine delivery time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to incorporate the communication preferences into the system of Perry for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 14, Perry, Ptashek, and Connely teaches the system of claim 13. Perry further teaches the patient context data includes at least one of: patient demographics, channel preferences, a previous channel interaction, a patient adherence score, a barrier assessment score, or an enrollment date (see paragraph 0036; patient demographic information). Perry does not explicitly teach context used as inputs to a next best action machine-learning algorithm. Ptashek further teaches context used as inputs to a next best action machine-learning algorithm (see paragraph 0025; uses a machine-learning operation to determine patient preferences). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to incorporate the communication preferences into the system of Perry for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 15, Perry, Ptashek, and Connely teaches the system of claim 1. Perry does not explicitly teach the patient context data includes patient historical data, patient preferences, and patient behaviors, and wherein the transmission mode of the message is determined using the patient context data. Ptashek further teaches the patient context data includes patient historical data, patient preferences, and patient behaviors, and wherein the transmission mode of the message is determined using the patient context data (see paragraph 0059; context based on patient preferences, including responsiveness, which indicates patient history and patient behavior, used to determine transmission mode). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to incorporate the communication preferences into the system of Perry for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 16, Perry, Ptashek, and Connely teaches the system of claim 15. Perry further teaches the patient context data includes at least one of: patient demographics, channel preferences, a previous channel interaction, a patient adherence score, a barrier assessment score, or an enrollment date (see paragraph 0036; patient demographic information). Perry does not explicitly teach context used as inputs to a next best action machine-learning algorithm. Ptashek further teaches context used as inputs to a next best action machine-learning algorithm (see paragraph 0025; uses a machine-learning operation to determine patient preferences). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to incorporate the communication preferences into the system of Perry for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 17, Perry, Ptashek, and Connely teaches the system of claim 1. Perry further teaches the patient context data includes at least one of: patient demographics, channel preferences, a previous channel interaction, a patient adherence score, a barrier assessment score, or an enrollment date (see paragraph 0036; patient demographic information). Perry does not explicitly teach context used as inputs to a next best action machine-learning algorithm. Ptashek further teaches context used as inputs to a next best action machine-learning algorithm (see paragraph 0025; uses a machine-learning operation to determine patient preferences). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to incorporate the communication preferences into the system of Perry for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 18, Perry, Ptashek, and Connely teaches the system of claim 1. Perry further teaches the instructions cause the processor to perform operations comprising: transmitting a completion event message to an event broker, the completion event message indicating that the patient engagement service has been successfully initiated, at least in part (see paragraph 0045; request form, sent electronically, includes electronic signature indicating that the patient service has been initiated, at least in part).
As per claim 19, Perry, Ptashek, and Connely teaches the system of claim 18. Perry further teaches the completion event message is used as a triggering event for an event subscriber (see paragraph 0009; trigger signals indicate a change in stored health care information).
As per claim 20, Perry, Ptashek, and Connely teaches the system of claim 1. Perry further teaches the instructions cause the processor to perform operations comprising: producing an event message to be used by event subscribers to initiate a new patient engagement action when a new patient engagement service becomes available (see paragraph 0050; list of available healthcare products is updated each time the program engine checks devices of the health care product suppliers).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry, US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0132106 in view of Ptashek, US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0161535 and Connely, US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0121843 and further in view of Caffarel, US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0171177.
As per claim 8, Perry, Ptashek, and Connely teaches the system of claim 1. Perry does not explicitly teach the patient engagement service includes an enrollment into a transportation service. Caffarel teaches providing a patient engagement service includes an enrollment into a transportation service (see paragraph 0038; social services provided to patient include transportation and mobility services). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to provide transportation services in the patient assistance program of Perry with the motivation of improving the services provided to patients (see paragraph 0006 of Caffarel).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry, US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0132106 in view of Ptashek, US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0161535 and Connely, US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0121843 and further in view of Brunetti, US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0179002.
As per claim 11, Perry, Ptashek, and Connely teaches the system of claim 1. Perry does not explicitly teach a recipient of the message is determined using a patient adherence score, the patient adherence score calculated based on a plurality of factors and indicative of how likely the patient is to adhere to prescribed treatment. Brunetti teaches a recipient of a message is determined using a patient adherence score, the patient adherence score calculated based on a plurality of factors and indicative of how likely the patient is to adhere to prescribed treatment (see paragraph 0022; patient adherence score indicative of likelihood that a patient will adhere to a prescribed treatment; paragraph 0041; example of message to a determined recipient based on adherence score). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include adherence score assessment in the system of Perry with the motivation of improving patient treatment (see paragraph 0003 of Brunetti).
As per claim 12, Perry, Ptashek, Connely, and Brunetti teaches the system of claim 11. Perry does not explicitly teach the plurality of factors include at least two of: patient demographics, a time since enrollment on the server system, a benefits verification outcome, a prior authorization outcome, an insurance coverage, a patient channel engagement data, a patient barrier assessment, or a patient sentiment analysis. Brunetti further teaches the plurality of factors include at least two of: patient demographics, a time since enrollment on the server system, a benefits verification outcome, a prior authorization outcome, an insurance coverage, a patient channel engagement data, a patient barrier assessment, or a patient sentiment analysis (see paragraph 0024; various patient attributes, including demographic factors, drug benefits; insurance, etc.). t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include adherence score assessment in the system of Perry for the reasons given above with respect to claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fotsch, US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0252467, discloses a medication trigger to determine patient eligibility for a drug cost savings program.
Hallemeier, US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0391045, discloses microservice-based eligibility verification for patient therapy programs.
Schoenberg, International Publication No. WO 2010/101757 A1, discloses a broker identifying engagement information based on patient health plan treatment options.
Hinck et al., The identification of economically relevant health and social care services for mental disorders in the PECUNIA project, discloses identifying social care services for outpatient service.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. Luke Gilligan whose telephone number is (571)272-6770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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 at 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 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.
C. Luke Gilligan
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3683
/CHRISTOPHER L GILLIGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights