CTNF 19/210,992 CTNF 93574 DETAILED ACTION Notices to Applicant This communication is a non-final rejection. Claims 1-20, as filed 05/16/2025, are currently pending and have been considered below. Priority is generally acknowledged to 17/540,991 (12/02/2021) and 63/197422 (06/06/2021). The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 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 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. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Long!, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969) A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,718 (reference patent) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The reference application (i) displays a first user interface including a first user-interactive graphical user interface object corresponding to a first lab type, (ii) displays a second user interface including a second user-interactive graphical user interface object corresponding to the first lab type and a third user-interactive graphical user interface object corresponding to a second lab type, (iii) receives a user input designating a lab type, and (iv) upon returning to the first user interface, displays the user-interactive graphical user interface object corresponding to the designated lab type with a graphical indication of a difference between two values for that lab type while not displaying that graphical indication for the non-designated lab types. This patented claim 1 anticipates every limitation of the instant claim 1 and adds further limitations. Specifically, the instant claim 1’s “set of clinical data that includes… a set of data instances that correspond to a first health topic, and a set of data instances that correspond to a second health topic” displayed within a single clinical data user interface reads on and is broader than the parent’s recitation of first and second lab type data, the parent’s “lab type” data being a species of the currently-claimed “health topic” genus. The instant claim 1’s “first user-interactive graphical user interface object that corresponds to the first health topic” and “second user-interactive graphical user interface object that corresponds to the second health topic” displayed within a single clinical data UI reads on and is broader than the patented claim 1’s “second user-interactive graphical interface object corresponding to the first lab type and a third user-interactive graphical user interface object corresponding to a second lab type” displayed within a single second user interface. In summary, claims 1-16 of the instant application are obvious in view of claim 1 of the reference patent. Claims 17-20 are obvious in view of claims 7, 6, 9, and 10 (respectively). Any differences between the claims would have been obvious for reasons similar to those given in the obviousness rejections below. Claim Objections Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 12 recites “the set of graphical user interface objects” but this phrase lacks antecedent basis and is interpreted as “the set of data instance graphical user interface objects” as established in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Step 1 The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claim 20), machine (claims 1-18), and/or article of manufacture (claim 19) which recites: 1. A computer system configured to communicate with a display generation component and one or more input devices, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: (additional elements – generally applying the abstract ideas with a computer) receiving, at the computer system, a set of clinical data that includes: a set of data instances that correspond to a first health topic, and a set of data instances that correspond to a second health topic, different than the first health topic; (additional elements – insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering) displaying, via the display generation component, a clinical data user interface that includes: (additional elements – generally applying the abstract ideas with a computer) a first user-interactive graphical user interface object that corresponds to the first health topic; a second user-interactive graphical user interface object that corresponds to the second health topic; and (abstract ideas – mental processes because a person can mentally categorize information with topic labels) a set of data instance graphical user interface objects, wherein: in accordance with a determination that the first user-interactive graphical user interface object is currently selected, the set of data instance graphical user interface objects corresponds to the set of data instances that correspond to the first health topic; and in accordance with a determination that the second user-interactive graphical user interface object is currently selected, the set of data instance graphical user interface objects corresponds to the set of data instances that correspond to the second health topic (abstract ideas – mental processes because a person can mentally focus on and review data items associated with a topic currently under consideration). Claim 1 is presented as an exemplary claim but the same analysis applies to the other claims 19 and 20. Step 2A Prong One The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because nothing precludes the italicized portions from being performed in the mind but for generic computer equipment (e.g., applying the abstract idea with a computer such as by displaying data under analysis). For example, a person reviewing a patient’s paper medical chart can mentally categorize the chart’s contents by topic (e.g., allergies), select a section of interest, and attend only to the chart entries associated with the selected section. Pencil notes can be used to perform the same function. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims. For example, claims 2, 5, 7, 13, and 14 recite additional details about conditional data display that is consistent with the abstract ideas described in claim 1 but for recitation of generic computer components. Step 2A Prong Two This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements: amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, processors, memory, and display generation components amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. For example, receiving a set of clinical data amounts to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g)) Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. For example, claims 3, 4, 6, 8-12, and 17-18 recites additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Claims 15 and 16 recite additional limitations which add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering. 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 or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea 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. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields. For example, receiving a set of clinical data amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec , MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), performing repetitive calculations, Flook , MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii), electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii), and/or storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. 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 or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-10, 12-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granvold (US20200381091A1) in view of Abou-Hawili (US20160239619A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Granvold discloses: A computer system configured to communicate with a display generation component and one or more input devices, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions (smartphone in [0056] running a health application in FIGs. 14-29) for: --receiving, at the computer system, a set of clinical data that includes: a set of data instances that correspond to a first health topic, and a set of data instances that correspond to a second health topic, different than the first health topic (obtaining first and second instances of health record in [0156]; categories of data including “clinical vitals” and the health record items “body weight,” “temp,” and “height” in [0196]; allergies and clinical vitals are two different health topics) ; --displaying, via the display generation component, a clinical data user interface that includes: a first user-interactive graphical user interface object that corresponds to the first health topic (displaying a GUI object corresponding to allergies in FIG. 16; “The user interface 1600 includes category section 1602 that includes a plurality of category cards 1604 a-1604 g, and may be presented after the user,” [0196]; selection of category cards in [0196]) ; --a second user-interactive graphical user interface object that corresponds to the second health topic (displaying a GUI object corresponding to clinical vitals in FIG. 16) ; and --a set of data instance graphical user interface objects, wherein: in accordance with a determination that the first user-interactive graphical user interface object is currently selected, the set of data instance graphical user interface objects corresponds to the set of data instances that correspond to the first health topic (when the allergies category card is selected, further information about allergies is presented in FIG. 17). Granvold discloses navigating from the category user interface to a topic specific interface in FIGs. 16-19 by selecting a category card, but does not expressly disclose that the first and second user-interactive GUI objects and the set of data instance GUIs are concurrently included in the same clinical data user interface. Abou-Hawili teaches this. In [0049], Abou-Hawili teaches “navigation icons 716” that persist across “most displays” for example in FIG. 12, the Vitals card is displayed at the bottom. The bottom of the patient interface 700 includes navigation icons 716 which enable to navigate between the user's tasks 718, vital signs of subscribed patients 720, messages 722, subscribed clinicians 724, and caregiver interface system interface home 726. These navigation icons 716 are common on most displays (see FIGs. 7, 10, and 12) and their selection causes the displayed content area to switch to the data instances of the corresponding topic. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date to expand Granvold’s categorized health data presentation with Abou-Hawili’s persistent topic displays (i.e., placing the topic objects on the same screen as the data instance objects and toggling the displayed data instances based on which topic is selected) because this would facilitate rapid access to information of different categories without forcing the user to navigate to different sections of the application to view the desired data. See Abou-Hawili [0052]. Additionally, it can be seen that each element is taught by either Granvold or Abou-Hawili. The navigation techniques of Abou-Hawili do not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Granvold. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Abou-Hawili with the teachings of Granvold since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable. Claims 19 and 20 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected with the same reasoning. Regarding claim 3, Granvold does not expressly disclose but Abou-Hawili teaches wherein the set of data instance graphical user interface objects includes a second data instance graphical user interface object, wherein the second data instance graphical user interface object includes a graphical indication of a difference between a first value corresponding to the second data instance graphical user interface object and a second value corresponding to the second data instance graphical user interface object (“The laboratory results interface 1300 also includes a laboratory results window 1308 which includes a list of all laboratory tests 1310, the results of those tests 1312, and the normal range of the results 1314. Abnormal lab results are highlighted with a graphical directional icon indicating whether a value is below a normal lower limit and/or is trending downward or above a normal upper limit and/or is trending upwards,” [0055]; FIGs. 10-13) . The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1. Regarding claim 4, Granvold does not expressly disclose but Abou-Hawili teaches wherein the set of data instance graphical user interface objects includes a third data instance graphical user interface object, wherein the third data instance graphical user interface object corresponds to a first data instance of a first type and a second data instance of a second type ([0055]; arrow showing trend in FIGs. 10-13) . The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1. Regarding claim 5, Granvold further discloses: wherein the set of data instance graphical user interface objects includes a fourth data instance graphical user interface object, the one or more programs further including instructions for: while displaying the clinical data user interface, receiving a user input corresponding to selection of the fourth data instance graphical user interface object (navigation away from category views upon selection of an item in Granvold which viewed in light of Abou-Hawili’s selectable lab test entries in FIG. 13) ; --in response to receiving the user input corresponding to selection of the fourth data instance graphical user interface object, displaying a lab user interface corresponding to the fourth data instance graphical user interface object, wherein the lab user interface includes a fifth user-interactive graphical user interface object that corresponds to a sixth health topic (Granvold lab results in FIGs. 25-26 which is viewed in light of Abou-Hawili’s Medications and Allergies section 1316 in FIG. 13) ; Granvold does not expressly disclose but Abou-Hawili teaches: while displaying the lab user interface, receiving a user input corresponding to selection of the fifth user-interactive graphical user interface object; and in response to receiving the user input corresponding to selection of the fifth user-interactive graphical user interface object, displaying the clinical data user interface wherein the set of data instance graphical user interface objects corresponds to the set of data instances that correspond to the sixth health topic (navigation buttons at the bottom of FIG. 10 are “common on most displays” in [0049] toolbar in FIG. 10; these buttons are used to navigate to and from various health topics) . The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1. Regarding claim 6, Granvold does not expressly disclose but Abou-Hawili further teaches: wherein the first user-interactive graphical user interface object and the second user-interactive graphical user interface object are aligned along a first axis, and the set of data instance graphical user interface objects is aligned along a second axis different from the first axis (navigation icons aligned horizontally and patient data list data aligned vertically in FIG. 10) . The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1. Regarding claim 7, Granvold does not expressly disclose but Abou-Hawili further teaches: the one or more programs further including instructions for: while the first user-interactive graphical user interface object is currently selected, and while the set of data instance graphical user interface objects that corresponds to the set of data instances that correspond to the first health topic is displayed, receiving a first user input; and in response to receiving the first user input: selecting the second user-interactive graphical user interface object; and modifying the set of data instance graphical user interface objects to correspond to the set of data instances that correspond to the second health topic (navigation icons in FIG. 10 enable the user to “navigate between the caregiver interface system interface home 1218, the vital signs of subscribed patients 1220, the user's tasks 1222, subscribed clinicians 1222, a consultation interface 1224, and the like,” [0054]; navigating between different views by selecting a new icon causes the displayed content to switch) . The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1. Regarding claim 8, Granvold further discloses: wherein displaying the clinical data user interface includes concurrently displaying a third user-interactive graphical user interface object that includes a first visual representation of data collected via a physiological measurement sensor (various medical sensors in [0065]; summary user interface 1500 shows “health-related data such as sleep data, activity data tracked by sensors of the user device 108 and/or received from a different user device (e.g., a wearable device) 1506, heart rate data, step data showing the number of steps the user has taken over some period of time, a summary of recent updates to the user's health record 1502, account status 1504, and any other suitable summary information,” [0193]) . Regarding claim 9, Granvold further discloses: the one or more programs further including instructions for: in accordance with a determination that the first user-interactive graphical user interface object is currently selected, the clinical data user interface includes chart data that corresponds to the first health topic; and in accordance with a determination that the second user-interactive graphical user interface object is currently selected, the clinical data user interface includes chart data that corresponds to the second health topic (“[t]he personal health ontology may also be used to graph or otherwise compare certain types of health record data (e.g., vitals, labs, or other such observable values),” [0052] where the displayed graph in the figures corresponds to the active category) . Regarding claim 10, Granvold further discloses: the one or more programs further including instructions for: in accordance with a determination that the first user-interactive graphical user interface object is currently selected, the clinical data user interface includes a set of information that corresponds to the first health topic; and in accordance with a determination that the second user-interactive graphical user interface object is currently selected, the clinical data user interface includes a set of information that corresponds to the second health topic (“presenting the data according to a categorization based on a set of predefined categories (e.g., allergies, vitals, conditions, immunizations, lab results, medications, and procedures),” [0051]; the displayed information corresponds to the selected category as shown in FIGs. 17-23) . Regarding claim 12, Granvold further discloses: the one or more programs further including instructions for: while displaying the clinical data user interface, receiving a second user input corresponding to selection of a data instance graphical user interface object of the set of graphical user interface objects (“Each category card 1604 includes a category header and a preview of a few health record items that have been grouped under the category header,” [0196]; this preview and detailed display is viewed in light of Abou-Hawili’s single patient interface 1200 that allows for selecting and drilling into more detailed views) ; --in response to receiving the second user input, displaying a second lab user interface, wherein the second lab user interface includes: a third visual indicator corresponding to one or more data instances corresponding to the data instance graphical user interface object of the set of graphical user interface objects (“With reference to FIG. 13, an exemplary embodiment of a laboratory results interface 1300 generated by decision support system is illustrated. The laboratory results interface 1300 enables the user to view patient and/or clinical data, particularly laboratory results, associated with a single patient in a single display… The laboratory results interface 1300 also includes a laboratory results window 1308 which includes a list of all laboratory tests 1310, the results of those tests 1312, and the normal range of the results 1314” [0055]) ; and --a fourth user-interactive graphical user interface object that corresponds to a fourth health topic (“The laboratory results interface 1300 also includes a medication and allergies window 1316 which displays the prescribed medications 1318 and allergies 1320 of the patient and enables a qualified user, in this case the attending physician, to re-order medication with an order icon 1322,” [0055]) . The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1. Regarding claim 13, Granvold further discloses: wherein the set of clinical data includes a fourth data instance that corresponds to the first health topic and does not correspond to the second health topic (“Each category card 1604 includes a category header and a preview of a few health record items that have been grouped under the category header,” [0196]) . Regarding claim 14, Granvold further discloses: wherein the set of clinical data includes a fifth data instance that corresponds to the first health topic and the second health topic (health ontology in FIG. 4 shows single nodes assigned to multiple categories) . Regarding claim 17, Granvold further discloses: wherein displaying the clinical data user interface includes concurrently displaying a sort user-interactive graphical user interface object that, when selected, causes the set of data instance graphical user interface objects to be displayed within the clinical data user interface based on at least a first sorting criteria (displaying sort options like “last updated” and “A to Z” in [0205] and FIGs. 19-20) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 11, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granvold (US20200381091A1) in view of Abou-Hawili (US20160239619A1) and Nenov (US20090177477A1) . Regarding claim 2, Granvold discloses: the one or more programs further including instructions for: receiving, at the computer system, a second set of clinical data that includes a first data instance; after receiving the second set of clinical data, displaying the clinical data user interface (“After the initial connections have been formed, however, the user device 108 may maintain ongoing connections with the EHR systems 114. In this manner, whenever an instance of the electronic health record is updated by one of the EHR systems 114, the user device 108 can obtain the updates,” [0156]; “The process 1200 begins at 1202 by the health record indexing engine 1006 checking for a new health record. This may include the health record indexing engine 1006 executing a listener on the user device 108. The listener detects when health record data is downloaded to the user device 108. This may include a user using the user device 108 to connect to an EHR system 114 and to download health record data,” [0164]) , wherein displaying the clinical data user interface includes: --in accordance with a determination that the first user-interactive graphical user interface object is currently selected and that the first data instance corresponds to the first health topic, displaying a first data instance graphical user interface object that corresponds to the first data instance (“the health record indexing engine 1006 writes an entry in a personal health ontology (e.g., a graph database) that associates the first preferred code and the concept node. This process creates a new node in the personal health ontology that maps one or more properties of the first preferred code with the concept node,” [0170]; “. For example, the list of allergies may be organized by recency, pollen being the most recent and shellfish being the oldest. In some examples, the identified list of allergies may have come from different instances of an electronic health record. For example, a first doctor at a university hospital in Hawaii in 2005 may have identified the shellfish allergy and a different doctor at a local clinic in Seattle in 2018 may have identified the pollen allergy,” [0198]) ; and --in accordance with a determination that the second user-interactive graphical user interface object is currently selected and that the first data instance corresponds to the second health topic, displaying the first data instance graphical user interface object that corresponds to the first data instance (Granvold discloses technology for receiving and presenting updates to patient records that handles every category in the same way, FIG. 16; “Each category card 1604 includes a category header and a preview of a few health record items that have been grouped under the category header,” [0196]; the currently selected limitation is viewed in light of Abou-Hawili as applied to claim 1) ; and --in accordance with a determination that the first data instance corresponds to a third health topic different from the first health topic and the second health topic, displaying a third user-interactive graphical user interface object that corresponds to the third health topic (receiving data that “does not map to a concept node in the curated health sub-ontology…generates an ad-hoc concept,” [0171]; FIG. 12) . The combination of Granvold and Abou-Hawili thus teaches a personal health ontology that drives presentation of data of predefined categories corresponding to common navigation icons. Granvold does not expressly disclose that the addition of new ad-hoc concept nodes causes a new GUI object to be displayed. Nenov teaches this. Nenov teaches that a set of interactive elements presented by a clinical dashboard is dynamic and always updated when new data is displayed so that the interactive elements cove the displayed data ([0012]; “each time new information is displayed in a dashboard (e.g., when a dashboard is first instantiated, when data is updated in a dashboard, when a new modality is opened in a dashboard, etc.), the set of available voice commands is updated to include some or all of the content displayed in the dashboard,” [0115]; using a keyboard and mouse in [0014]) . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date to expand the personal health display with interactive elements of Granvold and Abou-Hawili to include the generation of new interactive elements as taught by Nenov because this would give users necessary icons for reviewing the ad-hoc data received by Granvold. Additionally, it can be seen that each element is taught by either Granvold, Abou-Hawili, or Nenov. The generation of new interactive elements as taught by Nenov does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Granvold and Abou-Hawili. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Nenov with the teachings of Granvold and Abou-Hawili since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable. Regarding claim 11, Granvold further discloses: the one or more programs further including instructions for: in accordance with a determination that the first user-interactive graphical user interface object is currently selected, and that the computer system has not received one or more data instances corresponding to a first lab type that corresponds to the first health topic, displaying a first visual indicator corresponding to the first lab type; and in accordance with a determination that the second user-interactive graphical user interface object is currently selected, and that the computer system has not received one or more data instances corresponding to a second lab type that corresponds the second health topic, displaying a second visual indicator corresponding to the second lab type (storing various types of categories in [0196] which exist independently of whether the user has data in each category; generating ad-hoc concepts for new types of data in [0171]) . Granvold does not expressly disclose that the new topics are displayed with an indicator, but Nenov teaches this as described above in claim 10 and shown further in Nenov FIG. 2. The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 2. Regarding claim 15, Granvold does not expressly disclose but Nenov teaches: while displaying the clinical data user interface, receiving a first set of one or more user inputs that includes an input for adding a fifth health topic; and in response to receiving the first set of one or more user inputs, updating the clinical data user interface to include a user-interactive graphical user interface object that corresponds to the fifth health topic ([0012]; “each time new information is displayed in a dashboard (e.g., when a dashboard is first instantiated, when data is updated in a dashboard, when a new modality is opened in a dashboard, etc.), the set of available voice commands is updated to include some or all of the content displayed in the dashboard,” [0115]; using a keyboard and mouse in [0014]; opening modalities in [0008]. Thus when the new modality is opened, the modality itself displayed within the dashboard, and the set of interactive elements is updated to enable user interaction with the new modality) . The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 2. Regarding claim 16, Granvold does not expressly disclose but Nenov teaches: the one or more programs further including instructions for: while displaying the clinical data user interface, receiving a second set of one or more user inputs that includes an input for removing the first health topic; and in response to receiving the second set of one or more user inputs, updating the clinical data user interface to not include the first user-interactive graphical user interface object that corresponds to the first health topic ([008]-[0014] and [0115] as applied to claim 15. The Examiner further notes Nenov’s closing of modalities in these passages and in [0093]) . The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 2. Regarding claim 18, Granvold does not expressly disclose but Abou-Hawili teaches: in accordance with a determination that a first subset of the set of data instance graphical user interface objects has been designated via a user input received via the one or more input devices, displaying, via the display generation component, the first subset of the set of data instance graphical user interface objects in a first portion of the clinical data user interface; in accordance with a determination a second subset of the set of data instance graphical user interface objects different from the first subset of the set of data instance graphical user interface objects has not been designated via a user input received via the one or more input devices, displaying, via the display generation component, the second subset of the set of data instance graphical user interface objects in a second portion of the clinical data user interface different from the first portion of the clinical data user interface (subscribing to patients and other types of data in [0049]-[0051] and FIG. 7; “the DSS system displays the highest priority patient and/or clinical data associated with a patient based on the patient's status, clinical problem, and abnormal lab results. In another embodiment, the user selects which patient and/or clinical data is displayed for each patient manually,” [0052]) . The combination of Granvold and Abou-Hawili does not expressly disclose but Nenov teaches separating designated items from non-designated items (customizing dashboards for a user in [0009]; “rearranging locations of modalities and/or dashboards on screen,” [0035]. In combination, these teachings show a user designating which modalities go in which portion of the dashboard) . The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 2. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BLANCHETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-2299. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7:30AM - 6:00PM, EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant, can be reached on (571) 270-1360 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JOSHUA B BLANCHETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/210,992 Page 2 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 19/210,992 Page 3 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 19/210,992 Page 4 Art Unit: 3684
Prosecution Insights