DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the application filed by the applicant on 24 February 2026.
Claims 1-23 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. However, since the specification is significantly altered, no benefit to a prior filing date is acknowledged.
This application is a continuation-in-part of prior U.S. Application Serial No. 17/239378 (filed April 23, 2021), and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it constitutes a continuation-in-part of the prior application, as asserted. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
The Examiner has evaluated the claims and the independent claims 1, 22, and 23 do not have specification support from the original parent application for the following portions of these claims:
assigning, using a machine learning model, weights to the responses based on correlations among the responses;
computing base scores for the plurality of categories from the weighted responses using a hybrid scoring system;
quantifying, using a combination function, compounding vulnerabilities across categories; applying the compounding vulnerabilities to the base scores to produce a vulnerability index score;
comparing the vulnerability index score to thresholds associated with vulnerability tiers to establish a vulnerability tier of a user;
and generating and transmitting a vulnerability tier record to the user on a graphical user interface, including an explanation of the vulnerability tier of the user.
Further, since the dependent claims rely on claim 1, the dependent claims are also not supported under the parent application. That is, the specification of application 17/239,378 is not comprised of specification support for at least the subject matter disclosed above. The subject matter of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, are additionally not supported by the parent application specification, on their own, such that even if they were to become independent claim language, they are also not supported and therefore have an effective filing date of the instant application. Therefore, the priority date is the Effective Filing Date of this application of 2/24/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 February 2026 was filed along with the required size and size fee assertions. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims
Regarding Claims 1, 22, and 23: The claims recite: converting responses, assigning weights to responses, computing base scores, quantifying question based conditions, applying the conditions to the base scores to produce an index score, comparing the index score to thresholds, and generating a record. These limitations recite an abstract idea in the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” more specifically managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. These recitations are akin to a mental process that a human needs counselor, for instance, at a shelter, for victims, or connected to any needs based evaluative process, would perform when evaluating a user based on asked and answered questions, to determine if the user were in need of assistance at different threshold levels.
The limitations of comparing the index score to thresholds associated with tiers is also an abstract idea in the category of mathematical concepts, in the subcategories of mathematical relationships, i.e. the relationship between the score and the threshold associated with tiers, and mathematical calculations comprised in the comparison to establish the tiered level.
The claims place no limits to how the functions are performed, nor do they place limits on the mechanisms that do the performing, but for the computing structures in claims 1 and 23, discussed below. Therefore, these same recitations are also in the category of “mental processes,” or “things that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” that encompass observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. These mental processes are not limited to only those functions that are performed separate from computing structures, where the computing structures are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. a claim that recites computing structures may still be a mental process as disclosed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
The claims recite the following additional elements: for claims 1 and 3: a processor and instructions that when executed by the processor; claims 1, 2, and 3 each recite a communications network, one or more data sources, a user device, a user interface, and one or more data sources; claim 1 comprises a memory storing the instructions; and claim 3 comprises a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions. The computing structures recited in the claims are general purpose computing structures, recited at a high level of generality. Instructions to apply abstract ideas on general-purpose computing structures, adding the words “apply it,” where the computing structures are merely tools generally linked to and recited for performing the abstract idea, are not indicative of a practical application.
The claims recite the following limitations: transmit a questionaire, receive responses, retrieve user data, display the questionaire, and transmitting and displaying the record. The specification does not reveal advances to transmitting, sending, receiving, displaying, or outputting, i.e. displaying data. In fact, the claims are focused on the descriptive nature of the data without reciting how the functions are performed or detailing the mechanism that does the performing.
The claims, as a whole, are no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception because any additional elements, i.e. computing structures, are generally linked to the abstract ideas without applying or using said abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond the general linkage. Therefore, the claims are not comprised of any additional elements that are indicative of a practical application nor that amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 recites recalculating the tier in response to detecting a new event, which is an abstract idea in the category of mathematical concepts, more specifically in the subcategories of mathematical relationships and calculations, the same as the calculation step in the independent claim. The system recalculates in response to receiving new data, i.e. sending and receiving data, which are an additional element. The specification does not reveal advances to transmitting, sending, receiving, displaying, or outputting, i.e. displaying data. In fact, the claims are focused on the descriptive nature of the data without reciting how the functions are performed or detailing the mechanism that does the performing.
The claim recites the system of claim 1, i.e. general-purpose computing structures, recited at a high level of generality. Instructions to apply abstract ideas on general-purpose computing structures, adding the words “apply it,” where the computing structures are merely tools generally linked to and recited for performing the abstract idea, are not indicative of a practical application.
The claim, as a whole, is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception because any additional elements, i.e. computing structures, are generally linked to the abstract ideas without applying or using said abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond the general linkage. Therefore, the claims are not comprised of any additional elements that are indicative of a practical application nor that amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claims 3, 8, and 15 merely further defines data in the independent claims. Claim 3 defines the initiating events, i.e. it defines what data may be received to trigger recalculation; Claims 8 and 15 define the data sources to include electronic health record systems (EHR) or (claim 8), and (claim 15), statewide automated child welfare information system (SACWIS), without performing any functions. The claim recite implementing additional characterized data to previously recited data or additional characterized databases to previously recited databases, which are additional abstract ideas in the category of mental processes.
The claim recites the system of claim 1, i.e. general-purpose computing structures, recited at a high level of generality. The claims are adding the words apply it, reciting mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas using the computing structures, where the computing structures are merely tools generally linked to and recited for performing the abstract idea, are not indicative of a practical application.
Each of the claims, as a whole, are no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception because any additional elements, i.e. computing structures, are generally linked to the abstract ideas without applying or using said abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond the general linkage. Therefore, the claims are not comprised of any additional elements that are indicative of a practical application nor that amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claim 4 recites selecting, i.e. filtering, the provider and generating a message, which are in the category of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, the same overarching category of the majority of the independent claim. The system also transmits said message data, which is an additional element. The specification does not reveal advances to transmitting, sending, receiving, displaying, or outputting, i.e. displaying data. In fact, the claims are focused on the descriptive nature of the data without reciting how the functions are performed or detailing the mechanism that does the performing.
The claim recites the system of claim 1, i.e. general-purpose computing structures, recited at a high level of generality. Instructions to apply abstract ideas on general-purpose computing structures, adding the words “apply it,” where the computing structures are merely tools generally linked to and recited for performing the abstract idea, are not indicative of a practical application.
The claim, as a whole, is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception because any additional elements, i.e. computing structures, are generally linked to the abstract ideas without applying or using said abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond the general linkage. Therefore, the claims are not comprised of any additional elements that are indicative of a practical application nor that amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claim 5 recites monitoring, i.e. sending and receiving, and transmitting data, which are additional elements.. The specification does not reveal advances to transmitting, sending, receiving, displaying, or outputting, i.e. displaying data. In fact, the claims are focused on the descriptive nature of the data without reciting how the functions are performed or detailing the mechanism that does the performing.
The claim recites the system of claim 1, i.e. general-purpose computing structures, recited at a high level of generality. Instructions to apply abstract ideas on general-purpose computing structures, adding the words “apply it,” where the computing structures are merely tools generally linked to and recited for performing the abstract idea, are not indicative of a practical application.
The claim, as a whole, is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception because any additional elements, i.e. computing structures, are generally linked to the abstract ideas without applying or using said abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond the general linkage. Therefore, the claims are not comprised of any additional elements that are indicative of a practical application nor that amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claims 6 and 12 recites dynamically rendering, i.e. displaying data, which are additional elements. The specification does not reveal advances to rendering a graphical user interface or the displayed data thereon, or transmitting, sending, receiving, displaying, or outputting, i.e. displaying data. In fact, the claims are focused on the descriptive nature of the data without reciting how the functions are performed or detailing the mechanism that does the performing.
The claim recites the system of claim 1, i.e. general-purpose computing structures, recited at a high level of generality. Instructions to apply abstract ideas on general-purpose computing structures, adding the words “apply it,” where the computing structures are merely tools generally linked to and recited for performing the abstract idea, are not indicative of a practical application.
The claim, as a whole, is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception because any additional elements, i.e. computing structures, are generally linked to the abstract ideas without applying or using said abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond the general linkage. Therefore, the claims are not comprised of any additional elements that are indicative of a practical application nor that amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites identifying that a user category is in the highest category based on comparing their score to the base score according to the thresholds of the tier, which is an abstract idea in the category of mathematical concepts, more specifically in the subcategories of mathematical relationships and calculations, the same as the calculation step in the independent claim. The claim is focused on the descriptive nature of the data without reciting how the functions are performed or detailing the mechanism that does the performing.
The claim recites the system of claim 1, i.e. general-purpose computing structures, recited at a high level of generality. Instructions to apply abstract ideas on general-purpose computing structures, adding the words “apply it,” where the computing structures are merely tools generally linked to and recited for performing the abstract idea, are not indicative of a practical application.
The claim, as a whole, is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception because any additional elements, i.e. computing structures, are generally linked to the abstract ideas without applying or using said abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond the general linkage. Therefore, the claims are not comprised of any additional elements that are indicative of a practical application nor that amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claims 9, 10, and 20 merely further define the scoring system to include rule based logic and machine learned modifiers data in claims 9 and 10, claim 9 further defines the modifiers as characterized data, and claim 20 further defines the scoring system as a federated learning architecture, where further defining elements is an abstract idea in the category of mental processes. The claim recites the system of claim 1, i.e. general-purpose computing structures, recited at a high level of generality.
The claims recite the system of claim 1, i.e. general-purpose computing structures, recited at a high level of generality. Instructions to apply abstract ideas on general-purpose computing structures, adding the words “apply it,” where the computing structures are merely tools generally linked to and recited for performing the abstract idea, are not indicative of a practical application.
The claim, as a whole, is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception because any additional elements, i.e. computing structures, are generally linked to the abstract ideas without applying or using said abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond the general linkage. Therefore, the claims are not comprised of any additional elements that are indicative of a practical application nor that amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claim 11 merely further defines the explanation data that is generated and displayed in claim 1. The claim perform no functions, however, merely assigning data characterizations to previously recited characterized data is a mental process.
The claim recites the system of claim 1, i.e. general-purpose computing structures, recited at a high level of generality. Instructions to apply abstract ideas on general-purpose computing structures, adding the words “apply it,” where the computing structures are merely tools generally linked to and recited for performing the abstract idea, are not indicative of a practical application.
The claim, as a whole, is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception because any additional elements, i.e. computing structures, are generally linked to the abstract ideas without applying or using said abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond the general linkage. Therefore, the claims are not comprised of any additional elements that are indicative of a practical application nor that amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claim 13 recites refine weights and thresholds, which are abstract ideas in the category of mathematical concepts, more specifically in the subcategories of mathematical relationships and calculations. The claim is focused on the descriptive nature of the data without reciting how the functions are performed or detailing the mechanism that does the performing.
The claim recites the system of claim 1, i.e. general-purpose computing structures, recited at a high level of generality. Instructions to apply abstract ideas on general-purpose computing structures, adding the words “apply it,” where the computing structures are merely tools generally linked to and recited for performing the abstract idea, are not indicative of a practical application.
The claim, as a whole, is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception because any additional elements, i.e. computing structures, are generally linked to the abstract ideas without applying or using said abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond the general linkage. Therefore, the claims are not comprised of any additional elements that are indicative of a practical application nor that amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claim 14 recites retrieving data that is to be transmitted, i.e. sending and receiving data which are additional elements. The specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is related to advances to sending or receiving data. In fact, the claim is focused on the descriptive nature of the data without reciting how the functions are performed or detailing the mechanism that do the performing.
The claim recites the system of claim 1, i.e. general-purpose computing structures, recited at a high level of generality. Instructions to apply abstract ideas on general-purpose computing structures, adding the words “apply it,” where the computing structures are merely tools generally linked to and recited for performing the abstract idea, are not indicative of a practical application.
The claim, as a whole, is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception because any additional elements, i.e. computing structures, are generally linked to the abstract ideas without applying or using said abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond the general linkage. Therefore, the claims are not comprised of any additional elements that are indicative of a practical application nor that amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claim 16 recites retrieving questions, where retrieving/receiving data is an additional element. The specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is related to advances to sending, receiving, or storing data. In fact, the claim is focused on the descriptive nature of the data without reciting how the functions are performed or detailing the mechanism that do the performing.
The claim recites the system of claim 1, i.e. general-purpose computing structures, recited at a high level of generality. Instructions to apply abstract ideas on general-purpose computing structures, adding the words “apply it,” where the computing structures are merely tools generally linked to and recited for performing the abstract idea, are not indicative of a practical application.
The claim, as a whole, is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception because any additional elements, i.e. computing structures, are generally linked to the abstract ideas without applying or using said abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond the general linkage. Therefore, the claims are not comprised of any additional elements that are indicative of a practical application nor that amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claim 17 identifies that the system is implemented by either a mobile or a web based application, i.e. software instructions. The claims perform no functions, however, merely assigning application characterizations to previously recited software instructions is an abstract idea in the category of mental processes.
The claim recites the system of claim 1, i.e. general-purpose computing structures, recited at a high level of generality. Instructions to apply abstract ideas on general-purpose computing structures, adding the words “apply it,” where the computing structures are merely tools generally linked to and recited for performing the abstract idea, are not indicative of a practical application.
The claim, as a whole, is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception because any additional elements, i.e. computing structures, are generally linked to the abstract ideas without applying or using said abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond the general linkage. Therefore, the claims are not comprised of any additional elements that are indicative of a practical application nor that amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claim 18 recites that weights are retrieved, where receiving/retrieving message feature is an additional element. The specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is related to advances to retrieving, sending, or receiving data. In fact, the claim is focused on the descriptive nature of the data without reciting how the functions are performed or detailing the mechanism that do the performing.
The claim recites the system of claim 1, i.e. general-purpose computing structures, recited at a high level of generality. Instructions to apply abstract ideas on general-purpose computing structures, adding the words “apply it,” where the computing structures are merely tools generally linked to and recited for performing the abstract idea, are not indicative of a practical application.
The claim, as a whole, is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception because any additional elements, i.e. computing structures, are generally linked to the abstract ideas without applying or using said abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond the general linkage. Therefore, the claims are not comprised of any additional elements that are indicative of a practical application nor that amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claim 19 recites that converting includes mapping terms to ontologies, which is an abstract idea in the category of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, the same overarching category of the majority of the independent claim. The claim is focused on the descriptive nature of the data without reciting how the functions are performed or detailing the mechanism that does the performing.
The claim recites the system of claim 1, i.e. general-purpose computing structures, recited at a high level of generality. Instructions to apply abstract ideas on general-purpose computing structures, adding the words “apply it,” where the computing structures are merely tools generally linked to and recited for performing the abstract idea, are not indicative of a practical application.
The claim, as a whole, is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception because any additional elements, i.e. computing structures, are generally linked to the abstract ideas without applying or using said abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond the general linkage. Therefore, the claims are not comprised of any additional elements that are indicative of a practical application nor that amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claim 21 identifies that the explanation data includes a specifically recited data. The claims perform no functions, however, merely assigning data characterizations is an abstract idea in the category of mental processes.
The claim recites the system of claim 1, i.e. general-purpose computing structures, recited at a high level of generality. Instructions to apply abstract ideas on general-purpose computing structures, adding the words “apply it,” where the computing structures are merely tools generally linked to and recited for performing the abstract idea, are not indicative of a practical application.
The claim, as a whole, is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception because any additional elements, i.e. computing structures, are generally linked to the abstract ideas without applying or using said abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond the general linkage. Therefore, the claims are not comprised of any additional elements that are indicative of a practical application nor that amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 11- 13, 16-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Brunelle, US 20110282713 A1, in view of Plummer, US20180189457A1, and in further view of Chehrazi, US20240403968A1.
Claims 1, 22, and 23: Brunelle discloses:
Regarding claim 1: A system for assessing user need based on relationship association and vulnerability tiering, the system comprising: at least one processor; and a storage medium storing instructions that, when executed, configure the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: [0013] (a computer readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by the processor);
Regarding claim 22: A method for assessing user need based on relationship association and vulnerability tiering, comprising: [Abstract] (a method for performing);
Regarding claim 23: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: [0013 and 0076] (a computer readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by the processor);
Claims 1, 22, and 23: Brunelle discloses:
transmitting to a user device for display on a user interface, over a communication network, a questionnaire comprising questions that represent a plurality of categories; [0075] (a user interface on a user device to send, receive, and display applicable data to the user), [00077] (transmitting/communicating data over a network communication coupling to/from a the user interface of a user device), [0006 and 0011] (providing a set of questions representing a plurality of categories);
receiving responses to the questionnaire from the user device over the communication network; [0055] (receiving responses to questions from the user device over the devices above);
retrieving supplemental user information from one or more data sources; [0077] (retrieve data from data sources, which may include any retrieved data, implicitly inclusive of the collected user data as disclosed at least in [0076]);
assigning, weights to the responses based on correlations among the responses; [0008] (for each one of the criteria, assigning a weight to the answer based on correlations from criteria),
computing base scores for the plurality of categories from the weighted responses using a hybrid scoring system; [0011] (calculation, i.e. computing, a score as a function of the weights and answers, where the answers are categorized by particular criteria);
quantifying, using a combination function, compounding vulnerabilities across categories; [0011] (quantifying and combining scores into compound data for each category);
the compounding vulnerabilities; [0011] (quantifying and combining scores into compound data for each category)
Where Brunelle does not disclose, Plummer teaches: applying the compounding to the base scores to produce a vulnerability index score; [0025] “generating an index,” [0028] (then generate a score for the indexed data).
using a machine learning model; [0042] (machine learning model)
using a hybrid scoring system; [0042] (dynamically clustering the data based on patient score associated with the questionnaires corresponding to compounding);
comparing the vulnerability index score to thresholds associated with vulnerability tiers to establish a vulnerability tier of a user; [0028] (indexed score is compared to thresholds associated with tiers of need, i.e. vulnerability tiers, to establish the need level of the patient),
and generating and transmitting a vulnerability tier record to the user on a graphical user interface, including an explanation of the vulnerability tier of the user.[0040] (generate a record for the data collected, determined, compared, generated, i.e. a need based record).
Both Brunelle and Plummer disclose: base scores for the plurality of categories
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Chehrazi, and Plummer. The prior art of Brunelle and Chehrazi contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Plummer contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of implementing the weights to determine a score and ultimately aggregating said score to create a thresholding basis to compare and identify tiered level of each user, then generating and displaying the record to the user, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Where Brunelle does not disclose and Plummer does not each, Chehrazi teaches: converting the responses and the supplemental user information; [0025] (converting the data); [0058] (additional user data from one or more data sources);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle and Plummer with Chehrazi. Brunelle and Plummer, together contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Chehrazi contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of the implementing data conversion of supplemental user data, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
As disclosed above, the citations apply to claims 1, 22, and 23, which are comprised of different categorical elements. But for the preamble elements, the claims are rejected based on the same citations, disclosed above.
Claim 2. Brunelle discloses, and Plummer and Chehrazi teach: The system of claim 1,
Where Brunelle does not disclose and Chehrazi does not teach, Plummer teaches: wherein the operations further comprise recalculating the vulnerability tier of the user automatically in response to detecting an initiating event. [0038] (dynamically redetermine a threshold categorized score based on a new event).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Chehrazi, and Plummer. The prior art of Brunelle and Chehrazi contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Plummer contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of redetermining scores in response to an initiating event, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Claim 3. Brunelle discloses, and Plummer and Chehrazi teach: The system of claim 2,
Where Brunelle does not disclose and Chehrazi does not teach, Plummer teaches: wherein the initiating event includes at least one of: changes to at least one of the supplemental user information from the one or more data sources or changes to the responses to the questionnaire. [0038] (the initiating even includes changes to the responses), [0040] (an update to the user data).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Chehrazi, and Plummer. The prior art of Brunelle and Chehrazi contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Plummer contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of an initiating event including changing to responses or user data changes, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Claim 6. Brunelle discloses, and Plummer and Chehrazi teach: The system of claim 1,
Where Brunelle does not disclose, and Plummer does not teach, Chehrazi teaches: wherein the operations further comprise: dynamically rendering questions of the questionnaire based on previous responses of the user. [0075](the user interface is dynamically rendered for the viewing of the user.), [0026] (the questions are rendered based on collected information like answers to questions).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle and Plummer with Chehrazi. Brunelle and Plummer, together contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Chehrazi contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of rendering the imaging and questions based on collected information, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Claim 7. Brunelle discloses, and Plummer and Chehrazi teach: The system of claim 1,
Brunelle discloses: vulnerability; [0028] (indexed score is compared to thresholds associated with tiers of need, i.e. vulnerability tiers, to establish the need level of the patient), [Image 1, and 0052] (Score of 81.25). (Examiner notes that when the score based on weights is combined with Burnelle, below, we see another example of a Tier above a threshold based on a base score).
Where Brunelle does not disclose, and Chehrazi does not teach, Plummer teaches: wherein the operations further comprise: identifying a user as a highest tier upon determining one category has a base score above a threshold. [0028] (the score is 75-100 and is thus in the highest category tier, such that the score is above the 75 threshold tier).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Chehrazi, and Plummer. The prior art of Brunelle and Chehrazi contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Plummer contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of placing scores in tiers to identify the vulnerability of the user, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Claim 11. Brunelle discloses, and Plummer and Chehrazi teach: The system of claim 1,
Where Brunelle does not disclose, and Chehrazi does not teach, Plummer teaches: wherein the explanation of the vulnerability tier of the user includes identifying responses and external factors affecting the vulnerability tier of the user. [0019] (input data is in a format that utilizes descriptions of the data and carries these descriptions throughout the process), [0028] (the score is matched to its particular threshold tier), [0030] (a description may be added to the score to describe the user’s tiered score and what it may mean), [0066] (classify BOB based on the questions), [0069] “can classify a user into a particular category, cluster, group, type, or the like by asking.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Chehrazi, and Plummer. The prior art of Brunelle and Chehrazi contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Plummer contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of including identifying responses and external factors affecting the vulnerability tier of the user in the explanation of the vulnerability tier of the user includes, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Claim 12. Brunelle discloses, and Plummer and Chehrazi teach: The system of claim 1,
Where Brunelle does not disclose, and Chehrazi does not teach, Plummer teaches: wherein transmitting the explanation of the vulnerability tier of the user. [0028] (the score is matched to its particular threshold tier), [0030] (a description may be added to the score to describe the user’s tiered score and what it may mean), [0066] (classify BOB based on the questions), [0069] “can classify a user into a particular category, cluster, group, type, or the like by asking.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Chehrazi, and Plummer. The prior art of Brunelle and Chehrazi contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Plummer contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of the tier and explanation of the tier of the user, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Where Brunelle does not disclose, and Plummer does not teach, Chehrazi teaches: includes rendering interactive visualizations on a user device. [00100] (the user interface is dynamically rendering visualizations in 2B or 3D for the viewing of the user.), [0026] (the questions are rendered based on collected information like answers to questions), [0090-0091] (data is presented and is interactive for the user through/on the client device).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle and Plummer with Chehrazi. Brunelle and Plummer, together contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Chehrazi contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of rendering interactive visualizations on a user device, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Claim 13. Brunelle discloses, and Plummer and Chehrazi teach: The system of claim 1,
Brunelle discloses: weights [Abstract] (answers to questions receive weights, a score as a function of received answers and associated weights);
Where Brunelle does not disclose, and Chehrazi does not teach, Plummer teaches: wherein the operations further comprise: utilizing service provider outcome data to refine the weights and vulnerability tier thresholds. [0065] (at least some of the output data in this paragraph is synonymous with provider outcome data), [0067] (the data input is refined, i.e. the weights and scores, which results in a refinement to the pipeline that refines the output data resulting in refined weights and vulnerability scores that are read into the tier thresholds).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Chehrazi, and Plummer. The prior art of Brunelle and Chehrazi contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Plummer contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of the tier and explanation of the tier of the user, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Claim 16. Brunelle discloses, and Plummer and Chehrazi teach: The system of claim 1,
Where Brunelle does not disclose and Chehrazi does not teach, Plummer teaches: wherein the operations further comprise: retrieving one or more of the questions of the questionnaire based on a service provider identifier. [0077] (retrieve data from data sources, which may include any retrieved data, implicitly inclusive of the collected user data as disclosed at least in [0076]), [0009 and 0034] (retrieving the questions associated with a particular cluster, where a cluster represents, as in [Fig. 4, 416-417], particular provider identifiers).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Chehrazi, and Plummer. The prior art of Brunelle and Chehrazi contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Plummer contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of retrieving one or more of the questions of the questionnaire based on a service provider identifier, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Claim 17. Brunelle discloses, and Plummer and Chehrazi teach: The system of claim 1,
Where Brunelle does not disclose, and Chehrazi does not teach, Plummer teaches: wherein the system is implemented on a mobile application or a web-based application. [0064] (instructions on a mobile device), [0018] “Dynamic questionnaire application,” [0078] “application server, or that includes a front end component, e.g., a client computer having a graphical user interface or a Web browser through which a user can interact with an implementation of the subject matter described in this specification, or any combination of one or more such back end, middleware, or front end components,” (i.e. an application that map be implemented on a mobile device or web-based application).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Chehrazi, and Plummer. The prior art of Brunelle and Chehrazi contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Plummer contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of implementing the instructions as an application on a mobile application or a web-based application, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Claim 18. Brunelle discloses, and Plummer and Chehrazi teach: The system of claim 1,
Brunelle discloses: wherein at least one of the weights assigned to the responses is retrieved; [0008] (using a series of questions for each one of the criteria, each possible answer having a predetermined weight assigned, that is assigned to the appropriate question answer when the user so submits a response), [0011] “each question having a plurality of answers with varying weights associated thereto… calculating, for each first category, a score as a function of received answers and associated weights” (such that the weights must be retrieved and implemented in order to perform said calculations, i.e. as in [0012] “received answers and associated weights, further disclosed in [0078] where data is retrieved from memory to perform said calculations, wherein the weights are inherently incorporated by reference).
Where Brunelle does not disclose, and Chehrazi does not teach, Plummer teaches: based on a service provider identifier. [0077] (retrieve data from data sources, which may include any retrieved data, implicitly inclusive of the collected user data as disclosed at least in [0076]), [0009 and 0034] (retrieving data associated with a particular cluster, where a cluster represents, as in [Fig. 4, 416-417], particular provider identifiers.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Chehrazi, and Plummer. The prior art of Brunelle and Chehrazi contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Plummer contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of basing elements on a service provider identifier, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Claim 20. Brunelle discloses, and Plummer and Chehrazi teach: The system of claim 1,
Where Brunelle does not disclose, and Chehrazi does not teach, Plummer teaches: wherein the hybrid scoring system is implemented in a federated -learning architecture. [0008-0010 and 0073] (distributed learning, leaf nodes and hierarchical decision trees, where federated learning is incorporated within distributed learning, and the federated learning may also be a hierarchical decision tree with nodes).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Chehrazi, and Plummer. The prior art of Brunelle and Chehrazi contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Plummer contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of implementing a hybrid scoring system in a federated -learning architecture, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Claim 21. Brunelle discloses, and Plummer and Chehrazi teach: The system of claim 1,
Where Brunelle does not disclose, and Chehrazi does not teach, Plummer teaches: wherein the explanation of the vulnerability tier of the user includes a case summary of the user. [0028] (the score is matched to its particular threshold tier), [0030] (a description may be added to the score to describe the user’s tiered score and what it may mean), [0066] (classify BOB based on the questions), [0069] “can classify a user into a particular category, cluster, group, type, or the like by asking;”
and requires human review; [0069] (immediate review of the model and results);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Chehrazi, and Plummer. The prior art of Brunelle and Chehrazi contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Plummer contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of the explanation of the vulnerability tier of the user includes a case summary of the user and requiring human review , would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Where Brunelle does not disclose, and Chehrazi does not teach, Plummer at least partially teaches and Feely teaches: wherein the case summary is automatically generated. [0080] “The history attribute 2010 automatically consolidates information about a single person with a juxtaposed narrative summary completed by the caseworker,” [0082 and 0090] (a case summary that is automatically generated);
and requires human review and approval; [0266-0268] (requires human review and approval);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Chehrazi, and Plummer. The prior art of Brunelle and Chehrazi contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Plummer contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of the tier and explanation of the tier of the user, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Claims 4-5, 8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Brunelle, US 20110282713 A1, in view of Plummer, US20180189457A1, and in further view of Chehrazi, US20240403968A1, and in further view of Feely, US20120166206A1.
Claim 4. Brunelle discloses, and Plummer and Chehrazi teach: The system of claim 1,
Brunelle and Plummer disclose: based on the vulnerability tier of the user; using questions to determine weights and subsequently using weighting to determine scoring, in Brunelle, and using the scoring to determine the user tier in Plummer, all based on the questions, as disclosed in claim 1, above.
Where Brunelle does not disclose and Plummer does not teach, Chehrazi teaches: wherein the operations further comprise: selecting a service provider based on the user; [0019] (recommendations to users, selecting service providers or services based on the answers to the questions, i.e. based on the needs of the user).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle and Plummer with Chehrazi. Brunelle and Plummer, together contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Chehrazi contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of making service provider recommendations to users based on the questions, utilized in the scoring and weighting of Brunelle in view of Plummer, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Where Brunelle does not disclose, and Plummer and Chehrazi do not teach, Feely teaches: generating a referral message; [0115] (generate the referral message), [0116] (a referral message draft), [0052] (send and receive case messages), [0140] (generate a referral that is sent, i.e. the referral is a message);
and transmitting the referral message to the service provider. [0115] (referrals are transmitted to and subsequently received by the service provider).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Plummer, Chehrazi, and Feely. Brunelle, Plummer, Chehrazi, together contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Feely contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that generating a referral message and transmitting the referral message to the service provider, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Claim 5. Brunelle discloses, and Plummer and Chehrazi teach: The system of claim 4,
Where Brunelle does not disclose and Plummer does not teach, Chehrazi teaches: wherein the operations further comprise: monitoring an elapsed time after transmitting the referral message to the service provider; [0050] (monitoring for a threshold period of time to pass after the system transmits the referral information to a recommended service provider), [0069] (may adjust the policies based on the user data, such that Brunelle and Plummer implement said data to alter the tier based on the combined disclosures), [0063] “A recommendation may be generated on demand in response….automatically by the CAAS 105 in response to various events;”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle and Plummer with Chehrazi. Brunelle and Plummer, together contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Chehrazi contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of time monitoring after transmitting the referral message to the service provider, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Where Brunelle does not disclose, and Plummer and Chehrazi do not teach, Feely teaches: and transmitting at least one of a reminder to the service provider or an alternative referral message to at least one alternative provider when a predetermined threshold for an elapsed time without receiving a response from the service provider is met, [0052] (send and receive case messages), [0139] (automatically generate reminders based on present rules, including task reminders like a reminder to a service provider, users’ have <x> days to complete (a task) another has <x> days to perform another task, etc. The case management system will calculate these tasks/reminders based on when the first step of the process took place);
wherein the predetermined threshold is based on the vulnerability tier of the user. [0053] “based on a pre-determined set of selection criteria that match youth and family demographics and rank matches according to the criteria,” (Such that the changes to the rank would also correlate with the tiers of at least Plummer and form a combined disclosure where the tier of the user alters the predetermined set of criteria, i.e. the time threshold as in [0063], [0140] (reminders align with specific user actions that are taken. For example, a task may be created when referral is created and/or when specific attributes change, such that it would have been obvious to apply the change of the users’ tier of vulnerability based on the combined disclosures).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Plummer, Chehrazi, and Feely. Brunelle, Plummer, Chehrazi, together contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Feely contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of managing referrals and service providers based on time to determine if a reminder needs to be sent to the provider, a new provider needs to be included, incorporated with the vulnerability tiers of the combined disclosures, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Claim 8. Brunelle discloses, and Plummer and Chehrazi teach: The system of claim 1,
Where Brunelle does not disclose, and Plummer and Chehrazi do not teach, Feely teaches: wherein the one or more data sources includes an electronic health record (EHR) system or a statewide automated child welfare information system (SACWIS). [0094] (medical record), [0144] (any electronic record system), [0006-0011] (The system is a SACWIS system implementation, and such a SACWIS system must collect and manage all of the information required within the SACWIS records), [0144] (maintain the electronic file), [0078] (health information is stored).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Plummer, Chehrazi, and Feely. Brunelle, Plummer, Chehrazi, together contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Feely contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of incorporating either electronic health records or SACWIS systems, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Claim 14. Brunelle discloses, and Plummer and Chehrazi teach: The system of claim 1,
Where Brunelle does not disclose, and Chehrazi does not teach, Plummer teaches: based on the vulnerability tier of the user; [0028] The threshold tiers of the scoring system depict what values define the different tiers of need, i.e. vulnerability.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Chehrazi, and Plummer. The prior art of Brunelle and Chehrazi contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Plummer contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of basing techniques on the vulnerability tier of the user, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Where Brunelle does not disclose and Plummer and Chehrazi do not teach, Chehrazi teaches: wherein the operations further comprise: Based on vulnerability; [0001] “Data analysis based on demographics, risk, and need.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle and Plummer with Chehrazi. Brunelle and Plummer, together contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Chehrazi contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of retrieving referral message data to be transmitted, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Where Brunelle does not disclose, and Plummer and Chehrazi do not teach, Feely teaches: retrieving referral message data to be transmitted electronically to a service provider system. [0115] (referral message that are to be transmitted to a service provider), [0052] (send and receive case messages), [0067] (all case data including case components and messaging are searchable/auditable, i.e. the messaging data, that includes referral messages, may be searched, retrieved, and otherwise audited), [0077] (retrieve data from data sources, which may include any retrieved data, implicitly inclusive of the collected user data as disclosed at least in [0076]), [0095] (comprises data about referrals;
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Plummer, Chehrazi, and Feely. Brunelle, Plummer, Chehrazi, together contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Feely contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that retrieving messaging about referrals, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Claim 15. Brunelle discloses, and Plummer and Chehrazi teach: The system of claim 1,
Brunelle discloses: wherein the operations further comprise storing; [0076] (the system stores data including scores);
Where Brunelle does not disclose, and Chehrazi does not teach, Plummer teaches: the tier of the user and explanation of the tier of the user. [0028] (the score is matched to its particular threshold tier), [0030] (a description may be added to the score to describe the user’s tiered score and what it may mean), [0066] (classify BOB based on the questions), [0069] “can classify a user into a particular category, cluster, group, type, or the like by asking.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Chehrazi, and Plummer. The prior art of Brunelle and Chehrazi contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Plummer contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of the tier and explanation of the tier of the user, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Where Brunelle does not disclose, and Plummer and Chehrazi do not teach, but Feely teaches: wherein the operations further comprise storing the vulnerability of the user and explanation of the vulnerability of the user within both EHR and SACWIS records of the user. [0114] (Risk level evaluation, i.e. vulnerability), [0094] (medical record), [0144] (any electronic record system), [0006-0011] (The system is a SACWIS system implementation, and such a SACWIS system must collect and manage all of the information required within the SACWIS records), [0144] (maintain the electronic file), [0078] (health information is stored).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Plummer, Chehrazi, and Feely. Brunelle, Plummer, Chehrazi, together contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Feely contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of incorporating both electronic health records or SACWIS systems as databases to store pertinent data, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Claims 9-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Brunelle, US 20110282713 A1, in view of Plummer, US20180189457A1, and in further view of Chehrazi, US20240403968A1, and in further view of Reyntjens, US20260123620A1.
Claim 9. Brunelle discloses, and Plummer and Chehrazi teach: The system of claim 1,
the hybrid scoring system include bonuses, :[0011] (a hybrid scoring system, i.e. computing, a score as a function of the weights and answers, where the answers are categorized by particular criteria);
Where Brunelle does not disclose, and Plummer and Chehrazi do not teach, but Reyntjens teaches: wherein the system includes rule-based logic and machine-learned modifiers, wherein the machine-learned modifiers include bonuses, overrides, or floor constraints to compute base scores. [2348] (applies rules based logic), [1921] (modifiers), [2307] (bonuses), [3688] (overrides), [3599] (risk score calculation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Plummer, Chehrazi, and Reyntjens. Brunelle, Plummer, Chehrazi, together contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Feely contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of including modifiers, rule-based logic, and particular types of modifiers to compute risk scores, noting Reyntjens is more than lasers in at least [2348] that discloses “a machine-ingestible message or record … software instructions, or hardware logic, that causes the recited component to perform the specified operation when executed … including learned models, rule-based pipelines, deterministic lookups” and [1067] “A built-in AI adjudication system-potentially based on large language models—may evaluate the original contract, structured terms, and submitted evidence,“ would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Claim 10. Brunelle discloses, and Plummer and Chehrazi teach: The system of claim 1,
Where Brunelle does not disclose and Chehrazi does not teach, Plummer teaches: logic is retrieved based on a service provider identifier associated with a service provider. [0077] (retrieve data from data sources, which may include any retrieved data, implicitly inclusive of the collected user data and logic as disclosed at least in [0076]), [0009 and 0034] (retrieving the questions associated with a particular cluster, where a cluster represents, as in [Fig. 4, 416-417], particular provider identifiers).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Chehrazi, and Plummer. The prior art of Brunelle and Chehrazi contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Plummer contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of retrieving one or more of the questions of the questionnaire based on a service provider identifier, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Where Brunelle does not disclose and Plummer and Chehrazi do not teach, but Reyntjens teaches: wherein the hybrid scoring system includes rule-based logic and machine-learned modifiers, and the rule-based logic is retrieved. [2348] (applies rules based logic), [1921] (modifiers), [2307] (bonuses, based the broadest reasonable interpretation), [3688] (overrides), [3599] (risk score calculation), [2173] (trigger rules base logic, i.e. the logic is retrieved for use).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Plummer, Chehrazi, and Reyntjens. Brunelle, Plummer, Chehrazi, together contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Feely contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of including and retrieving rule-based logic and machine-learned modifiers to perform a hybrid scoring system, noting Reyntjens is more than lasers in at least [2348] that discloses “a machine-ingestible message or record … software instructions, or hardware logic, that causes the recited component to perform the specified operation when executed … including learned models, rule-based pipelines, deterministic lookups” and [1067] “A built-in AI adjudication system-potentially based on large language models—may evaluate the original contract, structured terms, and submitted evidence,“ would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Claim 19. Brunelle discloses, and Plummer and Chehrazi teach: The system of claim 1,
Where Brunelle does not disclose, and Plummer and Chehrazi do not teach, but Reyntjens teaches: wherein converting the responses and the supplemental user information includes mapping provider-specific intake terms to canonical need ontologies. [1071] “The platform may support these external integrations by providing well-defined APIs and semantic ontologies for service classification, ensuring that agent behavior remains consistent across implementations.” [7039] “the system may include a contextual reasoning module, optionally implemented using a large language model (LLM) or other semantic inference engine,” [2251] “anchored to canonical human-readable clause,” [1143] “facilitate the coordination of users with overlapping needs or concerns, such as shared grievances against a service provider.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the prior art of Brunelle, Plummer, Chehrazi, and Reyntjens. Brunelle, Plummer, Chehrazi, together contained a base disclosure upon which he claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Feely contained known techniques that are applicable to the base disclosure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of including mapping terms to canonical needs and incorporating language modeling to manage human canonical need ontologies, , noting Reyntjens is more than lasers in at least [2348] that discloses “a machine-ingestible message or record … software instructions, or hardware logic, that causes the recited component to perform the specified operation when executed … including learned models, rule-based pipelines, deterministic lookups” and [1067] “A built-in AI adjudication system-potentially based on large language models—may evaluate the original contract, structured terms, and submitted evidence,“ would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA HATCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1393. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571)270-3923. 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.
ANGELA HATCH
Examiner
Art Unit 3626
/ANGELA HATCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
