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: “software interface configured to” in claims 1, 3, 5, and 7, “computing device is configured to” in claims 1, 4, and 10, “data storage device configured to” in claims 1 and 12, and “algorithm is configured to” in claims 1 and 6.
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 1-15 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 limitations “device” 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 performing the computer-based functions is linked to software, processing, and/or memory. The written description fails to provide the justified links for the recited device functions (also described as (data storage device and computing device) other than reciting what is found in the claims. 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 1-15 are 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 “device” 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract
idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-15 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 and 13 are representative of the inventive concept and recite:
Claim 1
Data management system for matching a patient medical condition with a corresponding health care provider, comprising:
at least one data storage device configured to store patient medical data comprising a plurality of medical parameters acquired by a patient sensor and health care provider data comprising information on health care providers qualified to treat medical conditions associated with said patient medical data;
a first software interface to patient sensor, said first software interface being configured to receive the patient medical data
and to transmit said patient medical data to the at least one data storage device;
a second software interface to a further data storage device of the health care provider, wherein the second software interface is configured to update health care provider information in the at least one data storage device;
and a computing device configured to apply an algorithm to the patient medical data to determine if the patient medical condition requires treatment, wherein if treatment of the patient medical condition is determined to be required,
the algorithm is configured to match the patient medical condition with the corresponding health care provider according to the determined patient medical condition,
and wherein the computing device is configured to identify and schedule a sequence of necessary medical treatments.
*Claim 13 recites similar limitations but for a computer-implemented method
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
updating, determining, and matching) or using pen and paper. Other than reciting generic computer
components/functions such as “system” , “device”, “sensor”, “data storage device”, “software interface”, “algorithm”, and “computer”, 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 generic computer components and functions such as receiving 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 2-11 and 14-15 recite additional subject matter which further narrows or
defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim 2, reciting specifics on what is
considered a sensor, but for recitation of generic computer components/functions).
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: “system” , “device”, “sensor”, “data storage device”, “software interface”, “algorithm”, “to store patient medical data comprising a plurality of medical parameters acquired by a patient sensor and health care provider data comprising information on health care providers qualified to treat medical conditions associated with said patient medical data”, and “to transmit said patient medical data to the at least one data storage device”.
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 “system” , “device”, “sensor”, “data storage device”, “software interface”, “algorithm”. 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 algorithm are 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 “to store patient medical data comprising a plurality of medical parameters acquired by a patient sensor and health care provider data comprising information on health care providers qualified to treat medical conditions associated with said patient medical data”, and “to transmit said patient medical data to the at least one data storage device”.
Dependent claim 2 recites device and sensor
Dependent claim 3 recites data storage device and software interface
Dependent claim 4 recites computing device
Dependent claim 5 recites data storage device, software interface, computing device
Dependent claim 6 recite algorithm, sending, and acquiring
Dependent claim 7 recites system, data storage device, software interface
Dependent claim 8 recites system, data storage device, patient communication device, sensor, and app
Dependent claim 9 recites system, data storage device, and software interface
Dependent claim 10 recites system, computing device, and sensor
Dependent claim 11 recites system, data storage device, software interface
Dependent claim 12 recites system, data storage device, storing, and software interface
Dependent claim 14 recites computer program, program code, and computer
Dependent claim 15 recites computer-readable data carrier, program code, computer program, and computer
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 system, data storage device, patient communication device, sensor, app, software interface, computing device, computer program, program code, computer, and device, algorithm, and computer-readable data carrier . 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 algorithm are 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 storing, sending, and acquiring.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-15 include additional elements beyond those already recited in
Independent claims 1 and 13, 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 and 13 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
demonstrated by the recitation of:
Storing, which refers to the process of saving digital information (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) in a manner that would
be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Transmitting, which refers to the process of sending digital or analog information from one device to another (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.
Sending which refers to the process of sending digital or analog information from one device to another (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.
Acquiring, which refers to the process of obtaining data via digital methods (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.
Receiving data, which refers to the process of obtaining data via digital methods (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.
The claims do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1 and 13 and dependent claims 2-12 and 14-15. 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 is being unpatentable over Perlroth(US20170193171A1)
in view of Courville(US20150213220A1).
Claim 1
Perlroth discloses:
Data management system for matching a patient medical condition with a corresponding health care provider, comprising: at least one (Para 0032, Perlroth discloses a database storing health provider information); a first software interface to patient sensor, said first software interface being configured to receive the patient medical data and to transmit said patient medical data to the at least one data storage device(Figure 5, #510, Perlroth discloses receiving and transmitting patient data); a second software interface(Para 0072, Perlroth discloses software) to a further data storage device of the health care provider(Figure 7, #720, Perlroth discloses provider database which can be considered a storage device), wherein the second software interface(Para 0072, Perlroth discloses software) is configured to update health care provider information in the at least one data storage device(Figure 7, #720, Para 0069, Perlroth discloses updating provider database); and a computing device configured to apply an (Para 0062, Perlroth discloses an algorithm involved in matching patient to provider) is configured to match the patient medical condition with the corresponding health care provider according to the determined patient medical condition(Para 0036, Perlroth discloses a provider matching service using medical condition of patient as a factor in matching with a provider), and wherein the computing device(Figure 1, #140, Provider Matching Service can be considered a computing device) is configured to identify and schedule a sequence of necessary medical treatments(Para 0047, Perlroth discloses scheduling an appointment through providing matching service).
Perlroth does not explicitly disclose:
data storage device configured to store patient medical data comprising a plurality of medical parameters acquired by a patient sensor
algorithm to the patient medical data to determine if the patient medical condition requires treatment
Courville discloses:
data storage device configured to store patient medical data(Para 0019, Courville discloses storing patient medical data) comprising a plurality of medical parameters acquired by a patient sensor(Para 0050, Courville discloses patient data acquired from wearable sensors)
algorithm to the patient medical data to determine if the patient medical condition requires treatment(Figure 7, Courville discloses a method which determines if a patient requires treatment)
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 system for provider-patient matching of Perlroth, to add
data storage device configured to store patient medical data comprising a plurality of medical parameters acquired by a patient sensor and algorithm to the patient medical data to determine if the patient medical condition requires treatment, as taught by Courville. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to specify the types of data of importance and utilize this data to determine if treatment is required, but in this case, for a system for monitoring patient health(Para 0006, Courville discloses: “What is needed is a system for monitoring patient health that is responsive to the individual medical situation of each patient.”).
Claim 2
Perlroth does not explicitly disclose:
Data management system of claim 1, wherein the patient sensor is a diagnostic implant and/or a therapeutic implantable medical device, in particular a loop recorder, an implantable pulse generator, an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, a drug pump, a biochemical sensor and/or a cardiac resynchronization therapy device, and/or a wearable medical device(Para 0050, Courville discloses wearable sensors), an environmental sensor and/or an external medical or therapy device.
Courville discloses:
Data management system of claim 1, wherein the patient sensor is a diagnostic implant and/or a therapeutic implantable medical device, in particular a loop recorder, an implantable pulse generator, an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, a drug pump, a biochemical sensor and/or a cardiac resynchronization therapy device, and/or a wearable medical device(Para 0050, Courville discloses wearable sensors), an environmental sensor and/or an external medical or therapy device.
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 system for provider-patient matching of Perlroth, to add
wearable medical device, as taught by Courville. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to specify the types of sensors that can be used to collect patient data to be analyzed, but in this case, for a system for monitoring patient health(Para 0006, Courville discloses: “What is needed is a system for monitoring patient health that is responsive to the individual medical situation of each patient.”).
Claim 3
Perlroth discloses:
Data management system of claim 1, wherein the at least one data storage device comprises a third software interface for depositing and/or updating patient electronic health record data(Para 0037, Perlroth discloses integrating health data analysis into a user’s electronic medical record) and a fourth software interface configured to
Perlroth does not explicitly disclose:
authenticate the patient electronic health record data and send it to a selected health care provider
Courville discloses:
authenticate the patient electronic health record data and send it to a selected health care provider(Para 0055, Courville discloses validating user credentials).
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 system for provider-patient matching of Perlroth, to add
authentication, as taught by Courville. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to ensure privacy and identity compliance required for sharing sensitive medical data, but in this case, for a system for monitoring patient health(Para 0006, Courville discloses: “What is needed is a system for monitoring patient health that is responsive to the individual medical situation of each patient.”).
Claim 4
Perlroth does not explicitly disclose:
Data management system of claim 1,wherein the computing device is configured to determine whether on-site or remote treatment of the medical condition associated with said patient medical data is required and/or probable.
Courville discloses:
Data management system of claim 1,wherein the computing device is configured to determine whether on-site or remote treatment of the medical condition associated with said patient medical data is required(Para 0062, Courville discloses an alert when medical condition exceeds a threshold requiring medical attention) and/or probable.
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 system for provider-patient matching of Perlroth, to add
the determination whether on-site or remote treatment of the medical condition associated with said patient medical data is required, as taught by Courville. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to enable the determination if treatment is required or not to improve patient outcomes, but in this case, for a system for monitoring patient health(Para 0006, Courville discloses: “What is needed is a system for monitoring patient health that is responsive to the individual medical situation of each patient.”).
Claim 5
Perlroth does not explicitly disclose:
Data management system of claim 4, wherein the at least one data storage device comprises a fifth software interface configured to receive a notification of the health care provider to accept, reject or delegate a treatment request, to revise the determination of the computing device, whether on-site or remote treatment of the medical condition associated with said patient medical data is required and/or to request further patient information, in particular patient symptoms.
Courville discloses:
Data management system of claim 4, wherein the at least one data storage device comprises a fifth software interface configured to receive a notification of the health care provider to accept, reject or delegate a treatment request, to revise the determination of the computing device, whether on-site or remote treatment of the medical condition associated with said patient medical data is required(Para 0017, Courville discloses an alert to the provider when intervention is necessary) and/or to request further patient information, in particular patient symptoms.
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 system for provider-patient matching of Perlroth, to add
whether on-site or remote treatment of the medical condition associated with said patient medical data is required, as taught by Courville. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to enable the determination if treatment is required or not to improve patient outcomes, but in this case, for a system for monitoring patient health(Para 0006, Courville discloses: “What is needed is a system for monitoring patient health that is responsive to the individual medical situation of each patient.”).
Claim 6
Perlroth does not explicitly disclose:
Data management system of claim 1,wherein the algorithm is configured to send the patient medical data comprising the plurality of medical parameters acquired by the patient sensor to a selected health care provider.
Courville discloses:
Data management system of claim 1,wherein the algorithm is configured to send the patient medical data comprising the plurality of medical parameters acquired by the patient sensor to a selected health care provider(Para 0053, Courville discloses the provider is sent health data for the provider to review).
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 system for provider-patient matching of Perlroth, to add
send the patient medical data comprising the plurality of medical parameters acquired by the patient sensor to a selected health care provider, as taught by Courville. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to send patient data to an evaluating provider to determine the course of action/treatment for a patient, but in this case, for a system for monitoring patient health(Para 0006, Courville discloses: “What is needed is a system for monitoring patient health that is responsive to the individual medical situation of each patient.”).
Claim 7
Perlroth discloses:
Data management system of claim 1,wherein the at least one data storage device comprises a sixth software interface configured to collect treatment metadata of the plurality of health care providers(Para 0032, Perlroth discloses databases storing physician prescribing data), in particular comprising a qualification(Para 0032, Perlroth discloses National Provider Identifier which can be a qualification), a ranking and or an availability for each of the plurality of health care providers.
Claim 8
Perlroth discloses:
Data management system of claim 1,wherein the plurality of health care providers are physicians(Para 0007, Perlroth discloses physicians), therapists, clinics and/or emergency services(Para 0007, Perlroth discloses ambulatory surgical centers) and wherein the at least one data storage device is connected to an app(Para 0023, Perlroth discloses a software application) on a patient communication device, in particular a smartphone(Para 0023, Perlroth discloses mobile device) and/or tablet(Para 0023, Perlroth discloses tablet), communicating with the patient sensor.
Claim 9
Perlroth discloses:
Data management system of claim 1,wherein the at least one data storage device comprises a seventh software interface(Para 0026, Perlroth discloses a patient interface) for depositing and/or updating payer information and/or preferences and an eighth software interface for depositing and/or updating patient treatment preferences(Para 0006, Perlroth discloses provider preferences).
Claim 10
Perlroth does not explicitly disclose:
Data management system of claim 1,wherein the computing device is configured to, based on the patient medical data comprising a plurality of medical parameters acquired by a patient sensor, determine a treatment urgency by the health care provider
Courville discloses:
Data management system of claim 1,wherein the computing device is configured to, based on the patient medical data comprising a plurality of medical parameters acquired by a patient sensor, determine a treatment urgency by the health care provider(Para 0046, Courville discloses triggering an alert to a provider if a parameter is out of range, which would require treatment (urgency)).
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 system for provider-patient matching of Perlroth, to add
patient medical data comprising a plurality of medical parameters acquired by a patient sensor, determine a treatment urgency by the health care provider, as taught by Courville. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to send patient data to an evaluating provider in situations where treatment is needed, but in this case, for a system for monitoring patient health(Para 0006, Courville discloses: “What is needed is a system for monitoring patient health that is responsive to the individual medical situation of each patient.”).
Claim 11
Perlroth discloses:
Data management system of claim 1,wherein the at least one data storage device comprises a ninth software interface and data for creating a quality index of the plurality of health care providers, in particular a treatment quality, a treatment cost, a reliability, a patient satisfaction(Para 0048, Perlroth discloses a patient survey to determine quality of treatment) and/or a payer ranking.
Claim 12
Perlroth discloses:
Data management system of claim 1, wherein the at least one data storage device (10) is configured to store treatment price and/or billing models for healthcare providers, to store healthcare providers selection criteria(Para 0006, Perlroth discloses provider preferences) and/or compliance rules for healthcare providers selection and comprises a tenth software interface (36) for billing digital services.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites similar limitation as claim 1. See claim 1 analysis.
Claim 14
Perlroth discloses:
Computer program with program code to perform the method of claim 13 when the computer program is executed on a computer(Para 0023, Perlroth discloses a computer).
Claim 15
Perlroth discloses:
Computer-readable data carrier containing program code of a computer program(Para 0072, Perlroth discloses computer-readable medium containing computer program code) for performing the method of claim 13 when the computer program is executed on a computer(Para 0023, Perlroth discloses a computer).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sze(US9195799B2) discloses a wireless patient monitoring system using sensors which send notifications.
Mirza(US11587134B2) discloses an internet disease monitoring system
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