DETAILED ACTION
In response to communications filed 3 October 2025, this is the first Office action on the merits. Claim 1 is pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if amended or a terminal disclaimer is filed to overcome the non-statutory double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Rice (US 2018/0018429 A1); Abedini et al. (US 9,424,532 B1); and Ovsjanikov et al. (US 2011/0179081 A1) are the closest prior art on record. Rice teaches
at a server (see Rice [0024]):
receiving, from a computing device, a provider request including a member identifier and member specified criteria, wherein the member specified criteria include member preference for a provider treating a condition of the member (see Rice [0031] and [0039], where the “user” is a member identifier and the “desired parameters, such as availability, location, language, gender, etc.” are member specified criteria); and
after receiving the provider request: retrieving one or more provider identifiers for association with the member specified criteria (see Rice [0039] and [0055], “provider/physician” and/or “NPI number”);
for each provider identifier, retrieving one or more provider characteristics for association with the provider identifier (see Rice [0039] and [0055], “physician profiles”);
generate an ordered list of the providers (see Rice [0073], “list of recommended physicians, and [0071], “highest ranking physician”); and
transmitting the ordered list of the providers to the computing device (see Rice [0073], “display a list of recommended physicians to the user”).
Rice does not explicitly teach
computing a member vector representative of one or more member characteristics representative of the member, wherein the one or more member characteristics are separate and distinct from the member specified criteria;
wherein the provider request is received after computing the member vector;
retrieving the member vector after receiving the provider request;
wherein the provider characteristics are represented as a respective pre-computed provider vector, wherein the provider vector includes a provider quality factor and a provider cost factor;
wherein generating the ordered list of providers is performed by analyzing the member vector, the member specified criteria, and the provider vector, wherein the ordered list of the providers is based upon a member-provider score for each provider, wherein the member-provider score is generated as a function of the member vector and the provider vector.
Abedini and Ovsjanikov are the closest prior art to these features. Abedini teaches in 7:66-8:34 to compute a “preferred strength vector of concepts of m-th patient” and a “preferred strength vector of concepts of n-th doctor,” i.e., member and provider vectors, respectively. Abedini further teaches in 8:35-48 to “rank a doctor n for a particular patient m . . . rank more than one doctor and produce a sorted list of preferred doctors.” However, Abedini does not teach wherein the provider vector includes a provider quality factor and a provider cost factor, or correct the deficiencies at issue.
Ovsjanikov teaches in [0030] to pre-compute vectors, because the “fi [item vector] and f u [user vector] are precomputed feature vectors . . . can be done offline.” However, the features of Ovsjanikov, alone or in combination with Rice and Abedini, likewise do not cure the deficiencies at issue.
Accordingly claim 1, when considered as a whole, is not taught by the prior art on record.
Double Patenting
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 Longi, 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 § 2146 et seq. 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-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 12,443,608 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from as shown in the following table.
Instant Application
US 12,443,608 B1
1. A method for recommending one or more providers to a member, the method comprising:
at a server:
computing a member vector representative of one or more member characteristics representative of the member;
after computing the member vector, receiving, from a computing device, a provider request including a member identifier and member specified criteria, wherein the member specified criteria include member preference for a provider treating a condition of the member, and wherein the one or more member characteristics are separate and distinct from the member specified criteria; and
after receiving the provider request: retrieving the member vector;
retrieving one or more provider identifiers for association with the member specified criteria;
for each provider identifier, retrieving one or more provider characteristics for association with the provider identifier, represented as a respective pre-computed provider vector, wherein the provider vector includes a provider quality factor and a provider cost factor;
analyzing the member vector, the member specified criteria, and the provider vector to generate an ordered list of the providers, wherein the ordered list of the providers is based upon a member-provider score for each provider, wherein the member-provider score is generated as a function of the member vector and the provider vector; and
transmitting the ordered list of the providers to the computing device.
1. A method for recommending one or more providers to a member, the method comprising:
at a server:
computing a member vector representative of one or more member characteristics representative of the member,
wherein computing the member vector includes: arranging the member characteristics into a member characteristics vector; multiplying the member characteristics vector by a member feature matrix of learnt latent weights for each of the member characteristics to generate a member-characteristic-feature vector; summing the member-characteristic-feature vector and a learnt member parameters vector to generate a member vector; and
storing the member vector;
after computing the member vector, receiving, from a computing device, a provider request including a member identifier and member specified criteria, wherein the member specified criteria include member preference fora provider treating a condition of the member, and wherein the one or more member characteristics are separate and distinct from the member specified criteria;
after receiving the provider request:
retrieving the member vector;
retrieving one or more provider identifiers for association with the member specified criteria;
for each provider identifier, retrieving one or more provider characteristics for association with the provider identifier, represented as a respective pre-computed provider vector;
analyzing the member characteristics and the provider characteristics to generate an ordered list of the providers, wherein the ordered list of the providers is based upon a relevancy rank of each provider that is specific to the member, wherein the relevancy rank is based on a plurality of provider-specific member-provider scores, wherein for each provider in a set of providers, a respective provider-specific member-provider score is generated as a function of the member vector and the respective provider vector;
transmitting the ordered list of the providers to the computing device.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,194,820. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from as shown in the following table.
Instant Application
US 11,194,820 B1
1. A method for recommending one or more providers to a member, the method comprising:
at a server:
computing a member vector representative of one or more member characteristics representative of the member;
after computing the member vector, receiving, from a computing device, a provider request including a member identifier and member specified criteria, wherein the member specified criteria include member preference for a provider treating a condition of the member, and wherein the one or more member characteristics are separate and distinct from the member specified criteria; and
after receiving the provider request: retrieving the member vector; retrieving one or more provider identifiers for association with the member specified criteria;
for each provider identifier, retrieving one or more provider characteristics for association with the provider identifier, represented as a respective pre-computed provider vector, wherein the provider vector includes a provider quality factor and a provider cost factor;
analyzing the member vector, the member specified criteria, and the provider vector to generate an ordered list of the providers, wherein the ordered list of the providers is based upon a member-provider score for each provider, wherein the member-provider score is generated as a function of the member vector and the provider vector; and
transmitting the ordered list of the providers to the computing device.
1. A method for recommending one or more providers to a member, the method comprising:
at a server:
receiving, from a computing device via a provider search interface, a provider request including a member identifier and member specified criteria;
retrieving one or more provider identifiers for association with the member specified criteria;
retrieving one or more member characteristics for association with the member identifier;
for each provider identifier, retrieving one or more provider characteristics for association with the provider identifier;
analyzing the member characteristics and the provider characteristics to generate an ordered list of the providers, wherein the ordered list of the providers is based upon a relevancy rank of each provider that is
specific to the member, wherein the relevancy rank is a function of at least one of: a provider cost factor, a provider quality factor, likelihood of a visit, likelihood
of a better health outcome for the member, likelihood of a provider result getting clicked by the member or a weighted combination thereof;
transmitting the ordered list of the providers to the computing device via the provider search inter face;
wherein analyzing the member characteristics and the provider characteristics to generate an ordered list of
the providers includes: [equation omitted] wherein M refers to the member associated with the provider request, wherein P refers to the provider, wherein alpha is the features associated with the member, wherein beta is the features associated with the respective provider, wherein Lim are learnt parameters of a particular success metric model associated with the member feature i, wherein Ljp are the learnt parameters of a particular success metric model associated with the respective provider feature j, FM is the learnt parameters (matrix) associated with and specific to the member, FP is the learnt parameters (matrix) associated with and specific to the respective provider, Bt is the feature bias terms that are learnt for the member, Bf is the feature bias terms that are learnt for the respective
provider.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 10,353,908. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table.
Instant Application
US 10,353,908 B1
1. A method for recommending one or more providers to a member, the method comprising:
at a server:
computing a member vector representative of one or more member characteristics representative of the member;
after computing the member vector, receiving, from a computing device, a provider request including a member identifier and member specified criteria, wherein the member specified criteria include member preference for a provider treating a condition of the member, and wherein the one or more member characteristics are separate and distinct from the member specified criteria; and
after receiving the provider request: retrieving the member vector; retrieving one or more provider identifiers for association with the member specified criteria;
for each provider identifier, retrieving one or more provider characteristics for association with the provider identifier, represented as a respective pre-computed provider vector, wherein the provider vector includes a provider quality factor and a provider cost factor;
analyzing the member vector, the member specified criteria, and the provider vector to generate an ordered list of the providers, wherein the ordered list of the providers is based upon a member-provider score for each provider, wherein the member-provider score is generated as a function of the member vector and the provider vector; and
transmitting the ordered list of the providers to the computing device.
1. A method for recommending one or more providers to a member, the method comprising:
at a scoring module of a server:
receiving, from a computing device via a provider search interface, a provider request including a member identifier and member specified criteria;
retrieving one or more provider identifiers for association with the member specified criteria;
retrieving one or more member characteristics for association with the member identifier;
for each provider identifier, retrieving one or more provider characteristics for association with the provider identifier;
analyzing the member characteristics and the provider characteristics to generate an ordered list of the providers, wherein the ordered list of the providers is based upon a relevancy rank of each provider that is specific to the member, wherein the relevancy rank is a function of at least one of: a provider cost factor, a provider quality factor, or a weighted combination thereof,
wherein analyzing the member characteristics and the provider characteristics to generate an ordered list of the providers includes: for each of the
providers, calculating a member-provider score: [equation omitted] wherein M refers to the member associated with the provider request, wherein P refers to the provider, wherein alpha is the features associated with the member, wherein beta is the features associated with the respective provider,
wherein Lim are learnt parameters of a particular success metric model associated with the member, wherein Ljp are the learnt parameters of a particular success metric model associated with the respective provider, FM is the learnt parameters (matrix) associated with and specific to the member, FP is the learnt parameters (matrix) associated with and specific to the respective provider, Bim is the feature bias terms that are learnt for the member, Blp is the feature bias terms that are learnt for the respective
provider, BM is the bias for the member,
BP are the bias for the respective provider, Yn is the nth interaction feature, In is the learnt weight for the nth interaction feature; and
transmitting the ordered list of the providers to the computing device via the provider search interface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kristopher Andersen whose telephone number is (571)270-5743. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM ET, Monday-Friday.
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, Ann Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. 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.
/Kristopher Andersen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights