DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 36-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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.
Claims 36-57 are drawn to a method, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 36 recites providing synchronize appointment availability data; providing receiving user input; receiving an electronic request specifying the user input comprising a specialty and a geographic location; comparing the electronic request with physician profile data and the appointment availability data to generate available appointment times for physicians associated with the specialty and within a predetermined distance to the geographic location; communicating a listing of the physicians and their available appointment times based on the comparison; receiving a selection of an available appointment time for a listed physician; booking the selected available appointment time for the listed physician as a referral appointment for a patient; transferring the one or more digital records for the patient, wherein the one or more digital records are stored; receiving tracking information for each referral appointment, wherein the tracking information includes at least an appointment status and an appointment history for each referral appointment, and storing the tracking information; receiving an electronic tracking request for at least one referral appointment; generating a referral history in response to the tracking request, the referral history including at least the appointment status and the appointment history for the at least one referral appointment; communicating the referral history; receiving one or more updated digital records for the patient including medical treatment information; and communicating the patient medical treatment information.
The respective dependent claims 37-57, but for the inclusion of the additional elements specifically addressed below, provide recitations further limiting the invention of the independent claim(s).
Said recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, as reflected in the specification, which states the invention is “for managing the physician referral process, whereby a referring physician (e.g., a primary care provider) refers a patient to another physician (e.g., a specialist) for a particular medical procedure, analysis or care” (see: specification paragraph 1). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address a problem where, “[u]pon receiving a referral, the patient is usually the one left to arrange an actual appointment with the specialist…a patient may find himself/herself referred to a doctor with little to no near-term availability, or a doctor who no longer accepts his or her insurance” (see: specification paragraph 2). The recited limitations provide for “for facilitating referrals to in- network or otherwise affiliated physicians” (see: specification paragraph 22). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including an “on multiple practice group servers, a synchronizer application configured to automatically…from the multiple practice group servers to an aggregator database…by an aggregator server and to a user, a user interface capable of…by the aggregator server and from the user…by the aggregator server…in the aggregator database…by the aggregator server and to the user…by the aggregator server and from the user…by the aggregator server and to a selected practice group server chosen from the at least one of the practice group servers…via the synchronizer application…by the aggregator server and to the selected practice group server…in the aggregator database…by the aggregator server and from the selected practice group server…in the aggregator database…by the aggregator server and from the user…by the aggregator server…by the aggregator server to the user…by the aggregator server and from the at least one of the practice group servers…by the aggregator server to the user…” (claim 36), “with the selected practice group server” (claim 37), “by the aggregator server…” (claim 39), “by the practice group server…to the practice group server…on the network from the practice group server” (claim 41), “by the aggregator server and from the practice group server…in the aggregator database” (claim 42), “one or more of the practice group servers…” (claim 43), “one or more of the practice group servers…” (claim 46), “one or more of the practice group servers…” (claim 47), “by the aggregator server and from the user computing device…via the interactive user interface with the practice group server” (claim 49), “to the practice group server” (claim 50), “on the interactive user interface…” (claim 51), “wherein the interactive user interface comprises a website” (claim 52), “wherein the user computing device comprises an Internet enabled device” (claim 53), “by the aggregator server and from the user computing device…via the interactive user interface” (claim 54), “by the aggregator server and from the provider group server…” (claim 55), “on the interactive user interface…” (claim 56), and “the synchronizer application is configured to…from multiple practice group servers…” (claim 57), which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., the “synchronizer application” is merely equipped “on” the “multiple practice group servers” and is implemented though no more than a statement than that said synchronizer application is “configured to” to perform functions such that said functions are performed “via” said synchronizer application; the “aggregator server” is configured though no more than a statement than that functions are preformed “by” said server; the “aggregator database” is configured through no more than a statement than that data is to be provided “to” and “stored in” said database; the “user interface” is configured though no more than a statement than that it is “capable of” receiving input and uploads such that communication is performed “via” said interface, and though no more than a statement than that data is displayed “on” said user interface, such that the interface may comprise a “website”; the “user computing device” is configured though no more than a statement than that it is “Internet enabled”) such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer elements. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea(s) with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 37-57, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea(s) without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
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 49-54 and 56 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claim 49, the claim teaches “the interactive user interface”, but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 51-52, 54, and 56 are rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 49, the claim teaches “the user computing device”, but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 53-54 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 50-51 depend from and incorporate the specifically rejected claims above while failing to remedy the limitations shown as indefinite; therefore, they are rejected here for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 36-57 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0089085 to Schoenberg in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0017222 to Yeluri.
As per claim 36, Schoenberg teaches a method comprising:
providing, on multiple practice group servers, a synchronizer application configured to automatically synchronize appointment availability data from the multiple practice group servers to an aggregator database (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 1, ele. 130, 110; and paragraph 32 and 122, is met by tracking the availability of the service providers, where availability or presence is tracked actively with one or more of the service providers providing an indication to the computerized system that the one or more service providers are available to be contacted by consumers, and the system acquires information from external data sources automatically with synchronous updates from provider feeds relevant for consumer referrals);
providing, by an aggregator server and to a user, a user interface capable of receiving user input (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 1, 2A, and 5B-5C; paragraph 31-33, 43-44, 58, is met by user interface including web pages including provider search page, for finding a provider);
receiving, by the aggregator server and from the user, an electronic request specifying the user input comprising a specialty and a geographic location (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 5B, ele. 240a, 242a “Located within 20 miles of 02139”; paragraph 44 and 64-65, is met by web page includes various elements to enable the consumer to input information so as to filter the provider list/available physicians based on various criteria including location, and provider type, and any metrics within the provider profile, including specialty);
comparing, by the aggregator server, the electronic request with physician profile data and the appointment availability data in the aggregator database to generate available appointment times for physicians associated with the specialty and within a predetermined distance to the geographic location (see: Schoenberg, 5B, ele. 240a, 242a “Located within 20 miles of 02139”; and Fig. 7; paragraph 33, 47, 59, 64-67, 69, 127, 139, and 162, is met by various criteria can be used to filter the available physicians, follow-up or pre-scheduling an engagement, tools including an engagement scheduler, and providers updating their availability calendar with future times they are expected to be available, where the filter the provider list/available physicians is based on various criteria including location, and provider type, and any metrics within the provider profile, including specialty);
communicating, by the aggregator server and to the user, a listing of the physicians and their available appointment times based on the comparison (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 5C and 12A-12B, ele. 372; paragraph 65-67 and 163, is met by list of physicians including name, specialty/type of physician);
receiving, by the aggregator server and from the user, a selection of an available appointment time for a listed physician (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 5C, ele. 266, Schedule Appt.; and paragraph 44, 47, and 59, is met by web page includes various elements to enable the consumer to input information, and instructing the scheduling module to pursue the established engagement at pre-defined schedules or at future designated time-points, with prompts to do so);
booking, by the aggregator server and to a selected practice group server chosen from the at least one of the practice group servers, the selected available appointment time for the listed physician as a appointment for a patient via the synchronizer application (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 47, 49, 58-59, and 139, is met by transferring information about the availability of the consumers and the providers to the scheduling module, the scheduling module establishing a new engagement, instructing the scheduling module to pursue the established engagement at pre-defined schedules or at future designated time-points);
transferring, by the aggregator server and to the selected practice group server, the one or more digital records for the patient, wherein the one or more digital records are stored in the aggregator database (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 58, 89, 105, 113, 142, and 156, is met by as associating records from multiple engagements with a unique identifier where the record is stored in a consumer record system database, and a consumer may choose to share this record with providers within the brokerage);
receiving, by the aggregator server and from the selected practice group server, tracking information for each appointment, wherein the tracking information includes at least an appointment status and an appointment history for each appointment, and storing the tracking information in the aggregator database (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 39, 58, 89, 105, 142, and 156, is met by as associating records from multiple engagements with a unique identifier where the record is stored in a consumer record system database, and the system keeps track of where the consumer is in any of the processes);
receiving, by the aggregator server and from the user (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 1, 2A, and 5B-5C; paragraph 31-33, 43-44, 58, is met by user interface including web pages), an electronic tracking request for at least one appointment (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 39, 58, 89, 105, 142, and 156, is met by on-demand access to patient records including work-up records for the consumer which is available to the consumer at any time for future reference, and associating records from multiple engagements with a unique identifier where the record is stored in a consumer record system database, and the system keeps track of where the consumer is in any of the processes including being taken to the same place where the consumer left off and the record is archived after successful treatment of condition);
generating, by the aggregator server, a history in response to the tracking request, the history including at least the appointment status and the appointment history for the at least one appointment (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 7, ele. “Upcoming Appointments”; and paragraph 39, 58, 89, 105, 142, and 156, is met by on-demand access to patient records including work-up records for the consumer which are available to the consumer at any time for future reference, and associating records from multiple engagements with a unique identifier where the record is stored in a consumer record system database, and the system keeps track of where the consumer is in any of the processes including being taken to the same place where the consumer left off and the record is archived after successful treatment of condition);
communicating, by the aggregator server to the user (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 1, 2A, and 5B-5C; paragraph 31-33, 43-44, 58, is met by user interface including web pages), the history (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 39, 58, 89, 105, 142, and 156, is met by on-demand access to patient records including work-up records for the consumer which are available to the consumer at any time for future reference);
receiving, by the aggregator server and from the at least one of the practice group servers, one or more updated digital records for the patient including medical treatment information (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 124, is met by accepting raw data inputs such as lab data for correlation to the profile of the consumer and application of analytic rules); and
communicating, by the aggregator server to the user, the patient medical treatment information (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 39, 58, 89, 105, 142, and 156, is met by on-demand access to patient records which are available to the consumer at any time for future reference).
Schoenberg teaches provider to provider interaction in the context of a consumer referral (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 144), but Schoenberg fails to specifically teach a referral appointment so as to provide a referral history; however, Yeluri teaches providing a user with healthcare visit options, where the user may be a patient, where the reason for the visit is a referral (see: Yeluri, paragraph 18-19, 36, and 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the web pages for requesting medical care services as taught by Schoenberg to include providing a user with healthcare visit options, where the user may be a patient, where the reason for the visit is a referral as taught by Yeluri with the motivation of providing a user with healthcare visit option based upon information entered by a user (see: Yeluri, paragraph 18) and/or meeting the patient’s needs, requests, and preferences regarding scheduling an appointment with a healthcare provider (see: Yeluri, paragraph 19).
As per claim 37, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 36, and further teach:
wherein the tracking information includes accepted appointments, shared documents and communications with the selected practice group server (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 7, ele. 296, “Upcoming Appointments”; and paragraph 39, 58, 89, 102, 105, 118, 142, and 156, is met by on-demand access to patient records including work-up records for the consumer which is available to the consumer at any time for future reference, and associating records from multiple engagements with a unique identifier where the record is stored in a consumer record system database, and the system keeps track of where the consumer is in any of the processes including being taken to the same place where the consumer left off and the record is archived after successful treatment of condition, and consumer can periodically interact with the health improvement function to track progress toward a goal).
As per claim 38, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 36, and further teach:
wherein the tracking information is filtered based on one or more of: a date range; a patient; a referred-to physician; or a specialty or a procedure of the referred-to physician (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 5B, ele. 240a, 248; paragraph 64-65 and 122, is met by provider search and filter the provider list/available physicians based on various criteria including location, and provider type, and any metrics within the provider profile, including specialty, and acquiring information updates from provider feeds relevant for consumer referrals).
As per claim 39, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 36, and further teach:
generating, by the aggregator server, a comparison of multiple referral histories for communication to the user (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 12B, ele. ‘view engagement history with provider’ and ele. “My History”; paragraph 39, 58, 68, 89, 92-93, 105, 122, 142, and 156, is met by acquiring information updates from provider feeds relevant for consumer referrals, and on-demand access to patient records including work-up records for the consumer which are available to the consumer at any time for future reference, and associating records from multiple engagements with a unique identifier where the record is stored in a consumer record system database, and the system keeps track of where the consumer is in any of the processes including being taken to the same place where the consumer left off, and the record is archived after successful treatment of condition).
As per claim 40, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 36, and further teach:
wherein the referral history further comprises suggested actions (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 12B, ele. ‘view engagement history with provider’ and ele. “My History”; paragraph 39, 58, 68, 89, 92-93, 97, 105, 112, 122, 142, and 156, is met by acquiring information updates from provider feeds relevant for consumer referrals, and on-demand access to patient records including work-up records for the consumer which are available to the consumer at any time for future reference, and associating records from multiple engagements with a unique identifier where the record is stored in a consumer record system database, and the system keeps track of where the consumer is in any of the processes including being taken to the same place where the consumer left off, and the record is archived after successful treatment of condition, and once a list of topics is defined, the analysis stage determines an engagement action plan or agenda for the consumer, suggesting the type of providers most appropriate to discuss each topic and the relative priorities of such discussions, and supplementing the record of the engagement with additional information, such as pointing out to a physician what treatment options the patient's health plan would prioritize for an illness noted in the record, or what preventative treatments the patient may be due for).
As per claim 41, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 40, and further teach:
wherein the suggested actions include one or more of: generating a communication with a patient for booking a new appointment; communicating patient information supplied by the practice group server; communicating patient clinical information; communicating appointment history information; communicating physician notes concerning the patient; entering a message to the patient; entering a message to the practice group server; or downloading a file on the network from the practice group server (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 12B, ele. ‘view engagement history with provider’ and ele. “My History”; paragraph 39, 58, 68, 89, 92-93, 97, 105, 112, 142, and 156, is met by on-demand access to patient records including work-up records for the consumer which are available to the consumer at any time for future reference, and associating records from multiple engagements with a unique identifier where the record is stored in a consumer record system database, and the system keeps track of where the consumer is in any of the processes including being taken to the same place where the consumer left off and the record is archived after successful treatment of condition, and once a list of topics is defined, the analysis stage determines an engagement action plan or agenda for the consumer, suggesting the type of providers most appropriate to discuss each topic and the relative priorities of such discussions, and supplementing the record of the engagement with additional information, such as pointing out to a physician what treatment options the patient's health plan would prioritize for an illness noted in the record, or what preventative treatments the patient may be due for).
As per claim 42, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 36, and further teach:
receiving, by the aggregator server and from the practice group server, shared documents, and storing the shared documents in the aggregator database (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 39, 58, 89, 105, 124, 142, and 156, is met by accepting raw data inputs such as lab data for correlation to the profile of the consumer and application of analytic rules, and associating records from multiple engagements with a unique identifier where the record is stored in a consumer record system database, and the system keeps track of where the consumer is in any of the processes).
As per claim 43, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 42, and further teach:
wherein the physician profile data includes affiliations of a referred-to physician with one or more of the practice group servers (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 1, ele. 130, 110; and paragraph 32, 54, 122, and 126-133, is met by tracking the availability of the service providers, where availability or presence is tracked actively with one or more of the service providers providing an indication to the computerized system that the one or more service providers are available to be contacted by consumers, where the service providers have affiliations, and the system acquires information from external data sources automatically with synchronous updates from provider feeds relevant for consumer referrals), and
Schoenberg fails to specifically teach wherein the applicable available appointment times are filtered based on the affiliations of the referred-to physician; however, Yeluri teaches providing a user with healthcare visit options, where the user may be a patient, where the reason for the visit is a referral, and where a provider may be a hospital, a clinic, a group of physicians, or a healthcare system (see: Yeluri, paragraph 18-19, 36, and 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the web pages for requesting medical care services as taught by Schoenberg to include providing a user with healthcare visit options, where the user may be a patient, where the reason for the visit is a referral, and where a provider may be a hospital, a clinic, a group of physicians, or a healthcare system as taught by Yeluri with the motivation of providing a user with healthcare visit option based upon information entered by a user (see: Yeluri, paragraph 18) and/or meeting the patient’s needs, requests, and preferences regarding scheduling an appointment with a healthcare provider (see: Yeluri, paragraph 19).
As per claim 44, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 36, and further teach:
wherein the applicable available appointment times are filtered based on the specialty or a procedure (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 5B, ele. 240a; paragraph 58, 64-65, and 96-99, is met by filter the provider list/available physicians based on various criteria including provider type and health concern, and any metrics within the provider profile, including specialty).
As per claim 45, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 44, and further teach:
communicating to the user a filtered listing of physicians including their respective specialties, procedures and affiliations (see: Schoenberg, Fig 5B, ele. 244c, 246a; Fig. 5C and 12A-12B, ele. 372; and paragraph 58, 64-67, 96-99, 126-133, and 163, is met by acquiring information updates from provider feeds relevant for consumer referrals, where the service providers have affiliations, and filter the provider list/available physicians based on various criteria including provider type and health concern, and any metrics within the provider profile, including specialty).
Schoenberg fails to specifically teach filtered physicians are referred-to physicians; however, Yeluri teaches providing a user with healthcare visit options, where the user may be a patient, where the reason for the visit is a referral, and where a provider may be a physician or a group of physicians (see: Yeluri, paragraph 18-19, 36, and 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the web pages for requesting medical care services as taught by Schoenberg to include providing a user with healthcare visit options, where the user may be a patient, where the reason for the visit is a referral, and where a provider may be a physician or a group of physicians as taught by Yeluri with the motivation of providing a user with healthcare visit option based upon information entered by a user (see: Yeluri, paragraph 18) and/or meeting the patient’s needs, requests, and preferences regarding scheduling an appointment with a healthcare provider (see: Yeluri, paragraph 19).
As per claim 46, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 36, and further teach:
wherein the physician profile data includes affiliations of a referred-to physician with one or more of the practice group servers (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 1, ele. 130, 110; and paragraph 32, 54, 122, and 126-133, is met by tracking the availability of the service providers, where availability or presence is tracked actively with one or more of the service providers providing an indication to the computerized system that the one or more service providers are available to be contacted by consumers, where the service providers have affiliations, and the system acquires information from external data sources automatically with synchronous updates from provider feeds relevant for consumer referrals), and
Schoenberg fails to specifically teach wherein the tracking request is based on one of the affiliations of the referred-to physician; however, Yeluri teaches providing a user with healthcare visit options, where the user may be a patient, where the reason for the visit is a referral, and where a provider may be a hospital, a clinic, a group of physicians, or a healthcare system (see: Yeluri, paragraph 18-19, 36, and 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the web pages for requesting medical care services as taught by Schoenberg to include providing a user with healthcare visit options, where the user may be a patient, where the reason for the visit is a referral, and where a provider may be a hospital, a clinic, a group of physicians, or a healthcare system as taught by Yeluri with the motivation of providing a user with healthcare visit option based upon information entered by a user (see: Yeluri, paragraph 18) and/or meeting the patient’s needs, requests, and preferences regarding scheduling an appointment with a healthcare provider (see: Yeluri, paragraph 19).
As per claim 47, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 36, and further teach:
wherein the physician profile data comprises affiliations of a referred-to physician with one or more of the practice group servers (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 1, ele. 130, 110; and paragraph 32, 54, 122, and 126-133, is met by tracking the availability of the service providers, where availability or presence is tracked actively with one or more of the service providers providing an indication to the computerized system that the one or more service providers are available to be contacted by consumers, where the service providers have affiliations, and the system acquires information from external data sources automatically with synchronous updates from provider feeds relevant for consumer referrals), and.
Schoenberg fails to specifically teach wherein the tracking request is based upon one or more of a patient, the referred-to physician, an affiliation, a specialty or a procedure; however, Yeluri teaches providing a user with healthcare visit options, where the user may be a patient, where the reason for the visit is a referral, and where a provider may be a hospital, a clinic, a group of physicians, or a healthcare system (see: Yeluri, paragraph 18-19, 36, and 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the web pages for requesting medical care services as taught by Schoenberg to include providing a user with healthcare visit options, where the user may be a patient, where the reason for the visit is a referral, and where a provider may be a hospital, a clinic, a group of physicians, or a healthcare system as taught by Yeluri with the motivation of providing a user with healthcare visit option based upon information entered by a user (see: Yeluri, paragraph 18) and/or meeting the patient’s needs, requests, and preferences regarding scheduling an appointment with a healthcare provider (see: Yeluri, paragraph 19).
As per claim 48, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 36, and further teach:
wherein the referral history comprises one or more of: the appointment status; the appointment history; clinical information; patient identification information; a referred-to physician; an appointment time; or further actions regarding the patient (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 12B, ele. ‘view engagement history with provider’ and ele. “My History”; and paragraph 39, 58, 68, 89, 92-93, 97, 105, 112, 122, 142, and 156, is met by acquiring information updates from provider feeds relevant for consumer referrals, and on-demand access to patient records including work-up records for the consumer which are available to the consumer at any time for future reference, and associating records from multiple engagements with a unique identifier where the record is stored in a consumer record system database, and the system keeps track of where the consumer is in any of the processes including being taken to the same place where the consumer left off, and the record is archived after successful treatment of condition, and once a list of topics is defined, the analysis stage determines an engagement action plan or agenda for the consumer, suggesting the type of providers most appropriate to discuss each topic and the relative priorities of such discussions, and supplementing the record of the engagement with additional information, such as pointing out to a physician what treatment options the patient's health plan would prioritize for an illness noted in the record, or what preventative treatments the patient may be due for).
As per claim 49, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 36, and further teach:
receiving, by the aggregator server and from the user computing device, a request to establish communication via the interactive user interface with the practice group server (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 5C, ele. 266, Schedule Appt.; and paragraph 44, 47, and 59, is met by web page includes various elements to enable the consumer to input information, and instructing the scheduling module to pursue the established engagement at pre-defined schedules or at future designated time-points, with prompts to do so).
As per claim 50, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 49, and further teach:
wherein the communications comprise one or more of a reminder to a patient or providing patient information to the practice group server (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 60, 146, and 154, is met by engagement-related notifications including availability).
As per claim 51, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 49, and further teach:
displaying, on the interactive user interface, a history of the communications (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 12B, ele. ‘view engagement history with provider’ and ele. “My History”; and paragraph 39, 58, 89, 105, 142, and 156, is met by on-demand access to patient records including work-up records for the consumer which are available to the consumer at any time for future reference, including a record of consumer entries, recordings, and provider notes, together with time stamps and identification of registrars).
As per claim 52, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 36, and further teach:
wherein the interactive user interface comprises a website (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 1, 2A, and 5B-5C; paragraph 31-33, 43-44, 58, is met by user interface including web pages including provider search page, for finding a provider).
As per claim 53, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 36, and further teach:
wherein the user computing device comprises an Internet enabled device (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 31, 130, and 158, is met by Internet or other types of networks).
As per claim 54, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 36, and further teach:
receiving, by the aggregator server and from the user computing device, patient clinical information uploaded via the interactive user interface (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 5A, ele. 172; and paragraph 44, 58, 61, 64-65, and 96, is met by web page includes various elements to enable the consumer to input information including intake information in response to questions to capture relevant information about the health of the consumer including both medical conditions and issues as well as general health and wellness assessment profiling).
As per claim 55, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 36, and further teach:
receiving, by the aggregator server and from the provider group server, patient clinical information (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 124, is met by accepting raw data inputs such as lab data for correlation to the profile of the consumer and application of analytic rules).
As per claim 56, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 36, and further teach:
displaying, on the interactive user interface, a booking receipt comprising the selected available appointment time of the referral appointment (see: Yeluri, paragraph 33, is met by appointment scheduler may confirm the appointment with either or both of the patient and the provider).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the web pages for requesting medical care services as taught by Schoenberg to include confirming the appointment with either or both of the patient and the provider as taught by Yeluri with the motivation of notifying the patient of the appointment time and location (see: Yeluri, paragraph 33).
As per claim 57, Schoenberg and Yeluri teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 36, and further teach:
wherein the synchronizer application is configured to automatically synchronize physician profile data and appointment availability data from multiple practice group servers prior to booking the referral appointment (see: Schoenberg, Fig. 1, ele. 130, 110; and paragraph 32 and 122, is met by tracking the availability of the service providers, where availability or presence is tracked actively with one or more of the service providers providing an indication to the computerized system that the one or more service providers are available to be contacted by consumers, and the system acquires information from external data sources automatically with synchronous updates from provider feeds relevant for consumer referrals).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A SOREY whose telephone number is (571)270-3606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8am to 5pm.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/ROBERT A SOREY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights