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
The application is a National Stage entry of PCT/US2023/071858. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application 63/395,968, filed 08/08/2022 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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 and 11 (claim 1 representative) a first database having an observation data pertaining to a patient; a second database having a historical medical data for the patient; a third database having a customer preference data for the patient; recite aggregate data at least obtained from the observation data, the historical medical data, and the customer preference data; curate the aggregated data to provide a curated template, the curated template being populated based at least in part on information provided by the aggregated data; generate a communication content comprising information from the curated template; and generate, in response to a receipt of a signal that indicates a supervisory approval of the communication content by one or more members of a first group, provides and/or indicates access to the communication content to at least one member of a second group.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass managing personal behavior or interactions between people, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, the claims encompass manually aggregating observation, historical medical, and customer preference data, curating the data into a template to provide content to a group of individuals in response to supervisory approval of the content. Such manual steps encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation, in the context of a computer-implemented process, of a “signal” is considered an electrical signal. Therefore, recitations of “signal” will be addressed as an additional element below. However, recitation of performing a step “in response to receipt of a signal” does not include receiving a signal within the scope of the claim and is, therefore, treated as part of the abstract idea. Also note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “database” is an arrangement of data. Therefore, the recited databases are part of the abstract idea.
Claims 2-9 and 11-13 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea. For example, claims 2 and 11-12 further expand on the patient and physician. Claims 3-9 and 13 further expand on the consult. 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 idea.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the following additional elements at a high level of generality and merely utilized as tools to implement the abstract idea:
Claims 1:
a communication content aggregator and curator system having at least one processor and a memory coupled with the at least one processor, the memory including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor.
generate at least a signal.
Claim 11:
generating at least a signal.
The written description discloses that the recited computer components encompass generic components including “personal and/or mobile computing device(s), such as, for example, a desktop computer, laptop, tablet, smart phone, and/or mobile or cellular device, among other communication or computing devices” (see paragraph 00022). 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.
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.”).
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 processing with generic computer components. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20
Dependent claims 2-10 and 11-20 incorporate the abstract idea recited in claims 1 and 11. Additionally, claims 2 and 12 further define the members of the first and second group, which is part of the abstract idea identified above. Claims 3-4 and 14 further expand on receiving supervisory approval and providing access to content, which is part of the abstract idea identified above. Claims 5-6 and 13 further expand on populating the template with an identified medical problem of the patient, which further defines personal behavior of the user. Claims 7 and 15 further expand on the communication content, which is part of the abstract idea identified above. Claims 8-10 and 18-20 further include requesting a response from a member and deriving a condition of the patient from a response which further defines personal behavior of the user. Claims 16-17 further include deriving and adjusting communicated information which further defines personal behavior of the user.
Additionally, claims 2-10 and 12-20 recite the following additional elements: “the memory includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor further cause the at least one processor” (claim 3, 7-10), “generating a signal for a recipient device” (claim 20). As described above, these additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea. Such recitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Batman, US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0230714.
As per claim 1, Batman teaches a healthcare system comprising: a first database having an observation data pertaining to a patient (see paragraphs 0028-0029; EMR system includes on or more servers hosting at least one database and includes observations such as vital signs and notes from appointments); a second database having a historical medical data for the patient (see paragraphs 0028-0029; EMR system includes on or more servers hosting at least one database and includes information from historical medical data such as medications prescribed or administered, therapies administered to the patient results of diagnostic tests, etc.); a third database having a customer preference data for the patient (see paragraphs 0028-0029; EMR system includes on or more servers hosting at least one database and includes information that could be considered customer preference data such as patient demographics and patient identifying information; paragraph 0118 further describes storing and using preference data based on user interaction with the patient data); a communication content aggregator and curator system having at least one processor and a memory coupled with the at least one processor, the memory including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor (see paragraphs 0134-0135; memory and instructions for implementing the system functions) to: aggregate data at least obtained from the observation data, the historical medical data, and the customer preference data (see paragraph 0064 workflow system aggregates data from various sensors and EMR described above); curate the aggregated data to provide a curated template, the curated template being populated based at least in part on information provided by the aggregated data (see paragraph 0073 a template may be generated for a handoff report which is populated with the above identified aggregate data); generate a communication content comprising information from the curated template (see paragraph 0073; handoff report being the communication content); and generate, in response to a receipt of a signal that indicates a supervisory approval of the communication content by one or more members of a first group, at least a signal that provides and/or indicates access to the communication content to at least one member of a second group (see paragraph 0067; first care provider is prompted to validate content of the handoff report such that the handoff report is complete and provided to the second care provider).
As per claim 2, Batman teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Batman further teaches the first group comprises at least one or more medical professionals of a healthcare provider that provides medical services for the patient, and the at least one member of the second group comprises a surrogate that is not the patient (see paragraph 0068 first and second groups can be care providers, additionally, second group can be family members of the patient).
As per claim 3, Batman teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Batman further teaches the memory includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor further cause the at least one processor to receive the signal that indicates an occurrence of the supervisory approval of the communication content (see paragraph 0067; first care provider is prompted to validate content of the handoff report such that the handoff report is complete and provided to the second care provider).
As per claim 4, Batman teaches the system of claim 3 as described above. Batman further teaches the signal that provides and/or indicates access to the communication content communicates the communication content to a recipient device of the at least one member of the second group in a form of a written communication (see paragraph 0067; first care provider is prompted to validate content of the handoff report such that the handoff report is complete and provided to the second care provider; Figure 6 shows the report as written communication).
As per claim 5, Batman teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Batman further teaches the curated template is populated based at least in part on an indication from the aggregated data of a type of medical problem of the patient (see paragraph 0065; types of patient data correlated with different medical problems).
As per claim 6, Batman teaches the system of claim 5 as described above. Batman further teaches the communication content includes responds to prior questions from the at least one member of the second group (see paragraph 0071; handoff report may include answers to questions of the second care provider).
As per claim 7, Batman teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Batman further teaches the memory includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor further cause the at least one processor to adjust the communication content in response to information included in one or more prior communication contents that had previously been accessible to the at least one member of the second group (see paragraph 0118; handoff reports can be modified based on preferences from previous reports provided to care provider).
As per claim 8, Batman teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Batman further teaches the memory includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor further cause the at least one processor to generate a signal to request a response from the at least one member of the second group regarding a condition of the patient (see paragraph 0070; second provider is provided with graphical report to which they respond by interacting with the display to provide additional details about the patient).
As per claim 9, Batman teaches the system of claim 8 as described above. Batman further teaches the memory includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor further cause the at least one processor to derive information from one or more responses provided by the at least one member of the second group regarding the condition of the patient, and wherein the aggregated data includes at least a portion of the one or more responses provided by the at least one member of the second group (see paragraph 0073; interactions by the second member cause adjusting the data provided in subsequent reports).
As per claim 10, Batman teaches the system of claim 8 as described above. Batman further teaches the memory includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor further cause the at least one processor to generate a signal for a recipient device of the at least one member of the second group that reminds the at least one member of the second group of the request for the response regarding the condition of the patient (see paragraph 0070; second provider is provided with graphical report which reminds them respond by interacting with the display to provide additional details about the patient).
Claims 11 and 15-20 recite substantially similar method limitations to system claims 1, 4, and 7-10 and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
As per claim 12, Batman teaches the method of claim 11 as described above. Batman further teaches populating the curated template based at least in part on information provided by the set of aggregated data, and wherein the first group comprises at least one or more medical professionals of a healthcare provider that provides medical services for the patient ((see paragraph 0073 a template may be generated for a handoff report which is populated with the above identified aggregate data).
As per claim 13, Batman teaches the method of claim 12 as described above. Batman further teaches identifying, using at least the observational data, a type of medical problem of the patient, and wherein populating the curated template is based at least in part on the identified type of medical problem (see paragraph 0065; types of patient data correlated with different medical problems).
As per claim 14, Batman teaches the method of claim 11 as described above. Batman further teaches receiving a signal that indicates a granting of the supervisory approval (see paragraph 0067; first care provider is prompted to validate content of the handoff report such that the handoff report is complete and provided to the second care provider).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ogawa, International Publication No. WO 2019/183062, discloses a platform for facilitating communication of patient data between caregivers, family members, and patients.
MacDonald, US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0191165, discloses authorizing members of a patient care team to communicate patient data.
Clark, US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0189259, discloses collecting and communicating patient data between medical professionals, caregiver, family member and other authorized parties.
Weiss, US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0058626, discloses facilitating sending medical treatment related communications to users of various communication devices.
Lee et al., Efficacy of a Communication-Priming Intervention on Documented Goals-of-Care Discussions in Hospitalized Patients With Serious Illness, discloses facilitating communication with family members of patients.
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
