DETAILED ACTION
Claims 26-58 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 26-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 26-50 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); and Claims 51-58 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 26-58 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Independent claims 26 & 51 include limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, representative independent claim 51 recites:
51. (New) A medical information system for evaluation and presentation of medically important information from one or more data sources for patients in a data command center, the system comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory storing instructions and data, the memory comprising:
a data store configured to store, for each of a plurality of patients, patient-related data received from at least one electronic medical records system and from one or more external systems including at least one of a health information exchange, a hospital information system, a practice management system, a diagnostic or imaging system, a pharmaceutical system, an inventory management system, a financial or billing system, a patient portal system, a telemedicine system, and a home-monitoring system, the patient-related data including at least diagnoses, life events, hospital admissions, surgeries, laboratories, radiologic procedures, diagnostic tests, images, clinical measurements, medications ordered, prescribed, taken, or administered, dispensed medications, inventory records, financial or billing records, encounters, and scheduled, cancelled, or missed appointments;
at least one configuration object and associated visualization configuration data specifying visual elements for whole-life views and other dashboards; and
stored rules, models, and parameters for at least one of a rules engine, a clinical decision support system, a natural language processing system, or an artificial intelligence engine configured to implement a patient evaluation methodology;
at least one interface configured to:
receive the patient-related data from the electronic medical records system and the one or more external systems;
process and standardize the received patient-related data according to industry and proprietary standards; and
populate the data store, and transmit notifications and tasks to provider systems and patient communication systems; and
at least one display device configured to present whole-life views, medical records dashboards, and patient-facing views;
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
populate, for a given patient, the data store with patient-related data indexed over time and across a plurality of encounters;
generate a whole-life view for the patient that presents, on the at least one display device, a longitudinal representation of at least a subset of the patient-related data together with one or more visual elements that summarize patterns across time;
execute, by at least one of the rules engine, the clinical decision support system, the natural language processing system, or the artificial intelligence engine, configuration rules and weighting logic that evaluate the patient-related data across a plurality of sources to assign rating values to events and to identify medically important events having rating values satisfying at least one threshold condition, including events based on at least one of clinical factors, imaging findings, medication adherence, missed appointments, and inconsistencies between at least two of the electronic medical records system, the diagnostic or imaging system, the pharmaceutical system, the inventory management system, the financial or billing system, or the practice management system;
modify at least one visual element of the whole-life view to visually emphasize each identified medically important event relative to other events;
determine, using the patient evaluation methodology, whether the medically important events indicate that the patient is in need of timely intervention; and
in response to determining that the patient is in need of timely intervention, the data command center generates a task to at least one of a scheduler, a care coordinator, a medical care provider, or a practice staff member to arrange at least one of follow-up care, a diagnostic test, review of a diagnostic or imaging finding, or review of a medication-related concern or data inconsistency.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because storing patient related data, configuration data, rules, models and parameter data, using an interface to receive patient data, process and standardize data according to standards, populate the data store, presenting various views, generating a whole life view for a patient, using a rules engine to assign rating values to events and identify medically important events, determine if the patient needs intervention and generating a task for another user are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Accordingly, independent claim 51 and analogous independent claim 26 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 27-38 & 52-58 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 27, 36 recites the patient data and rating values; Claim 28 recites analyzing image data, generating measurement data, and adjusting a rating value; Claim 29 recites detecting an inconsistency between systems and assigning a rating value; Claims 30 recites identifying medically important events; Claim 31 recites determining if a patient needs intervention; Claim 32 recites distinguishing visual events from other events and generating tasks or notifications; Claims 33, 53 recites providing an interface where a user can place an order; Claim 34 recites pre-populating data fields in an interface; Claim 35 recites rules determining which data is to be displayed or not; Claims 37-38, 56 recites presenting notifications and alerts to various users; Claim 58 recites invoking a preauthorization and referral process for a patient; Claim 52 recites a control interface that allows for additional data to be output; Claims 54, 56 recites generating medically important events and actions for patients and generating a report summarizing patient data; Claim 57 recites presenting patient data to a user including various events and receiving patient-entered data. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 51 and analogous independent claim 27, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
51. (New) A medical information system for evaluation and presentation of medically important information from one or more data sources for patients in a data command center, the system comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory storing instructions and data, the memory comprising:
a data store configured to store, for each of a plurality of patients, patient-related data received from at least one electronic medical records system and from one or more external systems including at least one of a health information exchange, a hospital information system, a practice management system, a diagnostic or imaging system, a pharmaceutical system, an inventory management system, a financial or billing system, a patient portal system, a telemedicine system, and a home-monitoring system, the patient-related data including at least diagnoses, life events, hospital admissions, surgeries, laboratories, radiologic procedures, diagnostic tests, images, clinical measurements, medications ordered, prescribed, taken, or administered, dispensed medications, inventory records, financial or billing records, encounters, and scheduled, cancelled, or missed appointments;
at least one configuration object and associated visualization configuration data specifying visual elements for whole-life views and other dashboards; and
stored rules, models, and parameters for at least one of a rules engine, a clinical decision support system, a natural language processing system, or an artificial intelligence engine configured to implement a patient evaluation methodology;
at least one interface configured to:
receive the patient-related data from the electronic medical records system and the one or more external systems;
process and standardize the received patient-related data according to industry and proprietary standards; and
populate the data store, and transmit notifications and tasks to provider systems and patient communication systems; and
at least one display device configured to present whole-life views, medical records dashboards, and patient-facing views;
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
populate, for a given patient, the data store with patient-related data indexed over time and across a plurality of encounters;
generate a whole-life view for the patient that presents, on the at least one display device, a longitudinal representation of at least a subset of the patient-related data together with one or more visual elements that summarize patterns across time;
execute, by at least one of the rules engine, the clinical decision support system, the natural language processing system, or the artificial intelligence engine, configuration rules and weighting logic that evaluate the patient-related data across a plurality of sources to assign rating values to events and to identify medically important events having rating values satisfying at least one threshold condition, including events based on at least one of clinical factors, imaging findings, medication adherence, missed appointments, and inconsistencies between at least two of the electronic medical records system, the diagnostic or imaging system, the pharmaceutical system, the inventory management system, the financial or billing system, or the practice management system;
modify at least one visual element of the whole-life view to visually emphasize each identified medically important event relative to other events;
determine, using the patient evaluation methodology, whether the medically important events indicate that the patient is in need of timely intervention; and
in response to determining that the patient is in need of timely intervention, the data command center generates a task to at least one of a scheduler, a care coordinator, a medical care provider, or a practice staff member to arrange at least one of follow-up care, a diagnostic test, review of a diagnostic or imaging finding, or review of a medication-related concern or data inconsistency.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the processor, memory, data store, electronic medical record systems, external systems, display device; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of modifying visual elements of the interface, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); see Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A.).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 51 and analogous independent claims 26 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 28 recites using an artificial intelligence engine to analyze image data and amounts to an attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Claim 52 recites a control or link element which generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely "generally linking" the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or
significantly more.
Claim 58 recites an API additional element which generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely "generally linking" the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 51 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of the processor, memory, data store, electronic medical record systems, external systems, display device; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of modifying visual elements of the interface, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); see Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A.).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 39 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 39 recites:
39. (New) A computer-implemented method for evaluation and intervention for one or more patients in a data command center, the method comprising, by at least one processor:
receiving, for one or more patients, from at least one electronic medical records system and from one or more external health information systems including at least one of a financial or billing system, a practice management system, a diagnostic or imaging system, a pharmaceutical system, an inventory management system, a patient portal system, a telemedicine system, a home-monitoring system, or a payer or insurance data source, patient-related data over time for the one or more patients, the patient-related data including at least diagnoses, procedures, diagnostic tests, images, clinical measurements, medications ordered, prescribed, taken, or administered, encounters, and scheduled, cancelled, or missed appointments, and optionally further including at least one of claims data, authorization data, or payment-status data;
for each of the one or more patients, executing configuration rules and weighting logic, by at least one of a rules engine, a clinical decision support system, a natural language processing system, or an artificial intelligence engine, to assign rating values to events in the patient-related data and to identify medically important events having rating values that satisfy at least one threshold condition, including events corresponding to at least one of uncompleted recommended services, patterns of missed or cancelled appointments, possible medication-adherence issues indicated by discrepancies between medication orders and dispensing or refill information, and inconsistencies between at least two of the electronic medical records system, the diagnostic or imaging system, the pharmaceutical or inventory management system, the financial or billing system, or payer or insurance data;
for each of the one or more patients, determining, using a patient evaluation methodology implemented by at least one of the rules engine, the clinical decision support system, or the artificial intelligence engine, whether the medically important events indicate that the patient is in need of timely intervention based on at least one combination of critical conditions, critical procedures, diagnostic or imaging results, appointment history, medication-related risk, and payer-related status;
generating, by the data command center, evaluation results that indicate, for the one or more patients, which patients are determined to be in need of timely intervention and at least one recommended follow-up action for each such patient, and presenting the evaluation results in a report or dashboard that automatically lists or groups the patients according to priority for follow-up based on the rating values; and
in response to determining that at least one patient is in need of timely intervention, automatically causing by the data command center, generating a task to at least one of a scheduler, a care coordinator, a medical care provider, or a practice staff member to arrange at least one of follow-up care, a diagnostic test, review of a diagnostic or imaging finding, or review of a medication-related concern or data inconsistency.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because storing patient related data, configuration data, rules, models and parameter data, using an interface to receive patient data, populate the data store, presenting various views, generating a whole life view for a patient, using a rules engine to assign rating values to events and identify medically important events, determine if the patient needs intervention and generating a task for another user are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Accordingly, independent claim 39 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 40-50 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claim 40 recites using rules and logic to identify cohorts of patients and determining patients meeting a criteria; Claim 41 recites outputting results of the cohort analysis; Claim 42 recites adjusting a report by sorting patients based on a value;; Claims 43, 46-47 recites presenting notifications and alerts to various users; Claim 44 recites evaluating patient data based on rules and logic; Claim 45 recites the patient data and rating values; Claims 48-49 recites comparing receive data against stored patient data and generating alerts to providers; Claims 50 recites invoking a preauthorization and referral process for a patient. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 39, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
39. (New) A computer-implemented method for evaluation and intervention for one or more patients in a data command center, the method comprising, by at least one processor:
receiving, for one or more patients, from at least one electronic medical records system and from one or more external health information systems including at least one of a financial or billing system, a practice management system, a diagnostic or imaging system, a pharmaceutical system, an inventory management system, a patient portal system, a telemedicine system, a home-monitoring system, or a payer or insurance data source, patient-related data over time for the one or more patients, the patient-related data including at least diagnoses, procedures, diagnostic tests, images, clinical measurements, medications ordered, prescribed, taken, or administered, encounters, and scheduled, cancelled, or missed appointments, and optionally further including at least one of claims data, authorization data, or payment-status data;
for each of the one or more patients, executing configuration rules and weighting logic, by at least one of a rules engine, a clinical decision support system, a natural language processing system, or an artificial intelligence engine, to assign rating values to events in the patient-related data and to identify medically important events having rating values that satisfy at least one threshold condition, including events corresponding to at least one of uncompleted recommended services, patterns of missed or cancelled appointments, possible medication-adherence issues indicated by discrepancies between medication orders and dispensing or refill information, and inconsistencies between at least two of the electronic medical records system, the diagnostic or imaging system, the pharmaceutical or inventory management system, the financial or billing system, or payer or insurance data;
for each of the one or more patients, determining, using a patient evaluation methodology implemented by at least one of the rules engine, the clinical decision support system, or the artificial intelligence engine, whether the medically important events indicate that the patient is in need of timely intervention based on at least one combination of critical conditions, critical procedures, diagnostic or imaging results, appointment history, medication-related risk, and payer-related status;
generating, by the data command center, evaluation results that indicate, for the one or more patients, which patients are determined to be in need of timely intervention and at least one recommended follow-up action for each such patient, and presenting the evaluation results in a report or dashboard that automatically lists or groups the patients according to priority for follow-up based on the rating values; and
in response to determining that at least one patient is in need of timely intervention, automatically causing by the data command center, generating a task to at least one of a scheduler, a care coordinator, a medical care provider, or a practice staff member to arrange at least one of follow-up care, a diagnostic test, review of a diagnostic or imaging finding, or review of a medication-related concern or data inconsistency.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the data command center; electronic medical records system and from one or more external health information systems including at least one of a financial or billing system, a practice management system, a diagnostic or imaging system, a pharmaceutical system, an inventory management system, a patient portal system, a telemedicine system, a home-monitoring system, or a payer or insurance data source; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, independent claim 39 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, independent claim 39 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of the data command center; electronic medical records system and from one or more external health information systems including at least one of a financial or billing system, a practice management system, a diagnostic or imaging system, a pharmaceutical system, an inventory management system, a patient portal system, a telemedicine system, a home-monitoring system, or a payer or insurance data source; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 26-58 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Prior Art Rejection
All of the cited references fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims. In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of the features found within the independent claims, including receiving, for one or more patients, from at least one electronic medical records system and from one or more external health information systems including at least one of a financial or billing system, a practice management system, a diagnostic or imaging system, a pharmaceutical system, an inventory management system, a patient portal system, a telemedicine system, a home-monitoring system, or a payer or insurance data source, patient-related data over time for the one or more patients, the patient-related data including at least diagnoses, procedures, diagnostic tests, images, clinical measurements, medications ordered, prescribed, taken, or administered, encounters, and scheduled, cancelled, or missed appointments, and optionally further including at least one of claims data, authorization data, or payment-status data; for each of the one or more patients, executing configuration rules and weighting logic, by at least one of a rules engine, a clinical decision support system, a natural language processing system, or an artificial intelligence engine, to assign rating values to events in the patient-related data and to identify medically important events having rating values that satisfy at least one threshold condition, including events corresponding to at least one of uncompleted recommended services, patterns of missed or cancelled appointments, possible medication-adherence issues indicated by discrepancies between medication orders and dispensing or refill information, and inconsistencies between at least two of the electronic medical records system, the diagnostic or imaging system, the pharmaceutical or inventory management system, the financial or billing system, or payer or insurance data; for each of the one or more patients, determining, using a patient evaluation methodology implemented by at least one of the rules engine, the clinical decision support system, or the artificial intelligence engine, whether the medically important events indicate that the patient is in need of timely intervention based on at least one combination of critical conditions, critical procedures, diagnostic or imaging results, appointment history, medication-related risk, and payer-related status.
The most relevant prior art of record includes:
Ginsburg (US20170116373) teaches a data command center visual display system presents dynamic data to a display screen. The command center visual display system includes a plurality of adjustable display panels configured to display predetermined combinations of patient identification information, patient insurance information, patient medical history information, a patient's insurance billing regulations, preferred practice patterns, and patient payment information, and a patient flowsheet that integrates the patient medical history information and patient payment information into a table that presents the patient's medical history by visit to one or more physicians with respective procedures or actions performed during each visit represented as icons identifying the procedure performed and icons indicating whether the procedure has been paid for in part or in full, the icons providing links to associated medical history data and/or financial data. Brooks (US20200005916) teaches to a systems, methods, and GUIs are provided for visually communicating clinically relevant information in a manner that maintains context and trends across various sizes of user interfaces, such as smaller user interfaces on mobile devices. Follis (US20060265249) teaches to displaying and providing access to a stored patient electronic medical record (EMR), the computer-readable medium comprising a code segment executable by a processor for providing a user interface screen for display to a user, the user interface screen comprising a graphically-displayed timeline. Cafer (US20080243548) teaches a providing a computerized graphical user interface for displaying information to a user of the method, providing a reference database containing data pertaining to a field of endeavor engaged in by a user of the method, the reference database being stored on an electronic medium in communication with the computerized graphical user interface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights