DETAILED ACTION
Notices to Applicant
This communication is a final rejection. Claims 1-10 and 12-52, as filed 08/18/2026, 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 18, 36, and 52 are objected to because of the following informalities. The claims recite “determination a second subset” which appears to be a typographical mistake that should read “determination that a second subset”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 and 12-52 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, machine, and/or article of manufacture 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
a third user-interactive graphical user interface object that corresponds to a plurality of health topics including the first health topic and the second health topic, wherein, while the third user-interactive graphical user interface object is currently selected, displaying the clinical data user interface further includes displaying a set of data instance graphical user interface objects corresponding to one or more of the set of data instances that correspond to the first health topic and one or more of the set of data instances that correspond to the second health topic (abstract ideas – mental processes because a person can mentally categorize information with topic labels and under an all-topics header);
while displaying the clinical data user interface and while the third user-interactive graphical user interface object is currently selected, receiving, via the one or more input devices, a first user input; (additional elements – insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering, receiving a selection)
in response to receiving the first user input in accordance with a determination that the first user input corresponds to selection of the first user-interactive graphical user interface object; and
and that the computer system has not received one or more data instances corresponding to a first lab type related to the first health topic, updating the display of the clinical data user interface to: cease display of data instance graphical user interface objects corresponding to data instances that do not correspond to the first health topic; and display a first visual indicator indicating that one or more data instances corresponding to the first lab type have not been received; and
in accordance with a determination that the first user input corresponds to selection of the second user-interactive graphical user interface object;
and that the computer system has not received one or more data instances corresponding to a second lab type related to the second health topic, updating the display of the clinical data user interface to:
cease display of data instance graphical user interface objects corresponding to data instances that do not correspond to the second health topic; and display a second visual indicator indicating that one or more data instances corresponding to the second lab type have not been received (abstract ideas – mental processes because a person can mentally determine which topic to focus on and review only data items associated with a topic currently under consideration and determine which test types are relevant to that topic and have no result on file).
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, attend only to the chart entries associated with the selected section, and note which expected lab tests have no results on file. Pencil notes can be used to perform the same functions such as the visual indicator.
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, receiving the first user input amounts to receiving a selection, and displaying the clinical data user interface and visual indicators amounts to mere data output, 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 8, 27, and 43 recite a visualization of data collected via a physiological measurement sensor which is data gathering. Claims 15, 16, 33, 34, 49, and 50 recite receiving user inputs for adding/removing a topic which amounts to receiving a selection. 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
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 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.
Claims 1, 7-10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 26-29, 31, 32, 35, 42-45, 47, 48, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granvold (US20200381091A1) in view of Gajic (US20100198622A1).
Regarding claim 1, 19, and 20, Granvold discloses: A computer system configured to communicate with a display generation component and one or more input devices (“the user device 108 may be a smartphone or other user device on which specialized applications can operate,” [0056]), 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: (“The user interface 1600 is accessible within a health application (e.g., the health application 218) and illustrated on a display of the user device 108, which is an example of a handheld mobile device,” [0195)
--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; (“the user device 108 obtains a first instance of the health record 1004 a from the EHR system 114 a and a second instance of the health record 1004N from the EHR system 114N,” [0156]; “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])
--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; a second user-interactive graphical user interface object that corresponds to the second health topic (“The user interface 1600 includes category section 1602 that includes a plurality of category cards…The other category cards 1604 a (allergies), 1604 c (conditions), 1604 d (immunizations), 1604 e (lab results), 1604 f (medications), and 1604 g (procedures) also include a respective category header and health record items,” [0196]); and
--a third user-interactive graphical user interface object that corresponds to a plurality of health topics including the first health topic and the second health topic (“The user interface 1600 also includes a filter section that represents that a “health records” filter 1608 has been selected,” [0199),
--wherein, while the third user-interactive graphical user interface object is currently selected, displaying the clinical data user interface further includes displaying a set of data instance graphical user interface objects corresponding to one or more of the set of data instances that correspond to the first health topic and one or more of the set of data instances that 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. For example, the clinical vitals category card 1604 b includes the category header “clinical vitals” and the health record items “body weight,” “temp,” and “height,”” [0196]]);
--while displaying the clinical data user interface and while the third user-interactive graphical user interface object is currently selected, receiving, via the one or more input devices, a first user input; (“Selection of any one of the category cards 1604 may present a detailed view of the category card, as illustrated by a user interface 1700,” [0197]);
--in response to receiving the first user input: in accordance with a determination that the first user input corresponds to selection of the first user-interactive graphical user interface object (“The user interface 1700 includes the category card 1604 a for allergies. The personal health ontology may be leveraged to organize the list of allergies in some suitable manner. For example, the list of allergies may be organized by recency, pollen being the most recent and shellfish being the oldest,” [0198]; clinical vitals are previewed in FIG. 16 and not displayed in FIG. 17); and
--in accordance with a determination that the first user input corresponds to selection of the second user-interactive graphical user interface object; (“Selection of the clinical vitals item 1808 a causes the user device 108 to present a clinical vital user interface 1900 discussed with reference to FIG. 19,” [0203]; “the data presented in the clinical vitals user interface 1900 includes the most recently updated clinical vitals information. As illustrated in FIG. 19, two record entries 1904 a and 1904 b have been populated,” [0205]; allergy items are previewed in FIG. 16 and not displayed in FIG. 19); and
Granvold does not expressly disclose but Gajic teaches:
--and that the computer system has not received one or more data instances corresponding to a first lab type related to the first health topic (“The status of investigations will include: not ordered, ordered but not done, done not available, and available,” [0032]; status of “relevant investigations” in [0031]),
--display a first visual indicator indicating that one or more data instances corresponding to the first lab type have not been received (“The results of investigations that carry a high DUM score for a particular clinical syndrome will be displayed within information packages. The status of the investigation will be indicated to the physician,” [0032]; “relevant investigations (e.g., blood cultures, SvO2, lactate, CBC/Hct, Type and screen),” [0031]);
--that the computer system has not received one or more data instances corresponding to a second lab type related to the second health topic (“The packages can be organized by organ system…(5) relevant investigations status,” [0027])
--display a second visual indicator indicating that one or more data instances corresponding to the second lab type have not been received (“the clinician can trigger the display of all relevant syndrome-specific information packages,” [0033]).
A POSITA before the effective filing date would have been motivated before the effective filing date to expand Granvold’s category-based health record displays to including the investigation status of Gajic because identifying these missing but expected labs would help the caregiver make better medical judgments (“patient care and safety may be improved when a caregiver can make better medical judgments from well-selected and well-formatted information,” Gajic [0005]).
Additionally, each element is taught by either Granvold or Gajic. The investigation status display of Gajic does 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 Granvold with the teachings of Gajic 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 7, Granvold discloses: in response to receiving the first user input: in accordance with a determination that the first user input corresponds to selection of the second user-interactive graphical user interface object maintaining display of at least one data instance graphical user interface object corresponding to the second health topic (body weight, temp, and height are previewed in the clinical vitals card 1604b in [0196]; “the record entry 1904 a was collected on Apr. 26, 2019 at General Medical Health Care and includes a body temperature and a weight,” [0205]).
Regarding claim 8, Granvold further discloses: wherein displaying the clinical data user interface includes concurrently displaying a fourth 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 response to receiving the first user input: in accordance with a determination that the first user input corresponds to selection of the first user-interactive graphical user interface object is first user input corresponds to selection of the first user-interactive graphical user interface object is currently selected, updating the display of the clinical data user interface to include chart data that corresponds to the first health topic; and in accordance with a determination that the first user input corresponds to selection of the second user-interactive graphical user interface object, updating the display of the clinical data user interface to include 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); [0225].
Regarding claim 10, Granvold further discloses: in accordance with a determination that the first user input corresponds to selection of the first user-interactive graphical user interface object, updating the display of the clinical data user interface includes to include a set of information that corresponds to the first health topic; and in accordance with a determination that the first user input corresponds to selection of the second user-interactive graphical user interface object, updating the display of the clinical data user interface to include 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 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]; [0198]).
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; [0170]).
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).
Claims 26-29, 31, 32, 35, 42-45, 47, 48, and 51 are analogous to claims 7-10, 13, 14, and 17 and are rejected with the same reasoning.
Claims 2, 15, 16, 21, 33, 34, 37, 49, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granvold (US20200381091A1) in view of Gajic (US20100198622A1) 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 data instance corresponds to a respective health topic different from the first health topic and the second health topic, displaying a respective user-interactive graphical user interface object that corresponds to the respective health topic; and in response to receiving the first user input: in accordance with a determination that the first user input corresponds to selection of the first user-interactive graphical user interface object and that the first data instance corresponds to the second health topic, updating the display of the clinical data user interface to display the first data instance graphical user interface object that corresponds to the first data instance; and in accordance with a determination that the first user input corresponds to selection of the second user-interactive graphical user interface object and that the first data instance corresponds to the second health topic, updating the display of the clinical data user interface to display the first data instance graphical user interface object that corresponds to the first data instance (“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]; receiving data that “does not map to a concept node in the curated health sub-ontology” in [0171).
Granvold and Gajic do not expressly disclose but Nenov teaches: [displaying] in accordance with a determination that the first user input corresponds to selection of the first user-interactive graphical user interface object and that the first data instance corresponds to the first health topic updating the display of the clinical data user interface to display a first data instance graphical user interface object that corresponds to the first data instance ([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 category cards of Granvold and Gajic 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 and keep the available interactions current with the content displayed in the interface (Nenov [0115]).
Additionally, it can be seen that each element is taught by either Granvold, Gajic, 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 Gajic. 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 Gajic 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 15, Granvold does not expressly disclose but Nenov teaches:
while displaying the clinical data user interface, receiving via the one or more input devices a first set of one or more user inputs that includes an input for adding an additional 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 additional health topic (“examples of this functionality include the opening and closing of modalities within a dashboard, minimizing and maximizing modalities and/or dashboards, opening and closing multiple dashboards, moving modalities within a dashboard, moving dashboards on a screen, inputting data, etc,” [0093]; “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]; 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 via the one or more input devices a second set of one or more user inputs that includes an input for removing the additional 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 additional 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.
Claims 21, 33, 34, 37, 49, and 50 are analogous to claims 2, 15, and 16 and are rejected with the same reasoning.
Claims 3-6, 12, 22-25, 30, 38-41, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granvold (US20200381091A1) in view of Gajic (US20100198622A1) and Abou-Hawili (US20160239619A1).
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).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date to expand the category cards of Granvold and Gajic to include Abou-Hawili’s graphical directional icons because highlighting abnormal data and flagging trends would reduce alarm fatigue and information overload. See Abou-Hawili [0011].
Additionally, it can be seen that each element is taught by either Granvold, Gajic, or Abou-Hawili. The directional indications of Abou-Hawili does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Granvold and Gajic. 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 and Gajic 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 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 3.
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 and while the third user-interactive graphical user interface object is currently selected, receiving a user input corresponding to selection of the fourth data instance graphical user interface object; 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, (“Selection of the lab results item 1808 b causes the user device 108 to present a lab results user interface 2500 discussed with reference to FIG. 25,” [0203]; “The record entry 2504 a was collected on Mar. 29, 2019 by General Medical Health Care and includes a cholesterol test and a hemoglobin test,” [0219]).
Granvold does not expressly disclose but Abou-Hawili teaches: wherein the lab user interface includes a fifth user-interactive graphical user interface object that corresponds to a sixth health topic 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 (“a medication and allergies window 1316 which displays the prescribed medications 1318 and allergies 1320 of the patient,” [0055]; 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; [0054]).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 3.
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 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,” [0049]).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, Granvold further discloses: the one or more programs further including instructions for: while displaying the clinical data user interface and while the third user-interactive graphical user interface object is currently selected, receiving, via the one or more input devices, a second user input corresponding to selection of a respective data instance graphical user interface object of the set of data instance 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]; “Selection of any one of the items in the lab results list 2602 causes the user device 108 to present a detailed user interface specific to the subject matter of the selected item,” [0222]; 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).
Granvold does not expressly disclose but Abou-Hawili teaches: 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 respective data instance graphical user interface object of the set of data instance graphical user interface objects; and a fifth user-interactive graphical user interface object that corresponds to a fifth health topic (“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…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 3.
Claims 22-25, 30, 38-41, and 46 are substantially similar to claims 3-6 and 12 and are rejected with the same reasoning.
Claims 18, 36, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granvold (US20200381091A1) in view of Gajic (US20100198622A1), Abou-Hawili (US20160239619A1), and Nenov (US20090177477A1).
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 (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 motivation to combine Granvold, Gajic, and Abou-Hawili is the same as in claim 3.
Granvold does not expressly disclose but Nenov teaches: 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(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).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date to expand the category cards of Granvold, Gajic, and Abou-Hawili 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 and keep the available interactions current with the content displayed in the interface (Nenov [0115]).
Claims 36 and 52 are substantially similar to claim 18 and are rejected with the same reasoning.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/15/2026 have been fully considered and are discussed below.
The double patenting rejections are withdrawn in view of claim amendments.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention integrates any abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two) because, as in claim 1 of Example 37, amended claim 1 recites “a specific manner of displaying information based on a user input.” Remarks pages 25-28. This is not persuasive because claim 1 of Example 37 was found eligible based on additional elements that were part of a specific improvement to the operation of the GUI itself. The processor determined the amount of use of each icon and automatically arranged the icons accordingly. The portions of the claim that Applicant asserts as analogous are the abstract idea itself, namely, organizing entries under topic category headings, filtering data, and noting which test types have no data on file. Selecting which information to display based on category and presenting the result of the evaluation is a mental process being implemented using a computer as a tool. Improvements in the functioning of a computer must be reflected in the claims, and a claim that merely describes which data is outputted on the display rather than how the computer is configured to function differently merely uses a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Outputting the result of the analysis is insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The arguments regarding the prior art rejections are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection applied above.
The Examiner notes that Baldwin (US20120166220A1) is considered pertinent because it teaches a “quality measures for “ALL” medical conditions, FIG. 5 depicts quality measures for only “AMI,” and FIG. 6 depicts quality measures for “Heart Failure”” in [0056].
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action (See MPEP 706.07(a)). Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights