www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/025,129
`
`09/18/2020
`
`Richard F. Averill
`
`TIAT2USOIS
`
`3809
`
`3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
`PO BOX 33427
`ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
`
`RAPILLO, KRISTINE K
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3626
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/30/2022
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`LegalUSDocketing @ mmm.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-15 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`Cj} Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)___is/are objected to.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)(] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on 9/18/2020 is/are: a)(¥) accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)1) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`_—_c)L) None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)Q) All
`1.2) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.4.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 9/18/2020.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20220920
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`17/025,129
`Averill etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`KRISTINE K RAPILLO
`3626
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 9/18/2020.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/025,129
`Art Unit: 3626
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice to Applicant
`
`1.
`
`This communication is in response to the application submitted September 18,
`
`2020. The present application is a CON of application 16/064,146 (now abandoned).
`
`Claims 1 — 15 are pending.
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`2.
`
`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
`
`3.
`
`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 thistitle.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 1 — 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
`
`directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
`
`abstract idea) without significantly more.
`
`Step One
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1 — 15 are drawn to a system and non-transitory computer-readable
`
`storage medium, whichis/are statutory categories of invention (Step 7: YES).
`
`Step 2A Prong One
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/025,129
`Art Unit: 3626
`
`Page 3
`
`6.
`
`Independent claims 1, 9, and 13 recite a searchable multi-dimensional data
`
`representation of the performance of an entire health care delivery system, in which the
`
`performance of every healthcare provider, including downstream providers, that are
`
`delivering services is distilled downto a clinically credible measure of actual versus
`
`expected performanceat analytic points across a comprehensive set of quality
`
`outcomes and resourceutilization measures wherein the performance matrix has
`
`multiple dimensions including individual health care providers, sites of service, quality
`
`outcomes and resource use measures, type of patients, time periods covered,
`
`geographic location of provider and patient, and the patient's payer; creating the multi-
`
`dimensional data representation to obtain performance measures of a selected
`
`healthcare provider; and accessing the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain
`
`performance measuresof the selected healthcare provider.
`
`7.
`
`The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`cover certain methods of organizing human activity by providing the performance
`
`measure of a selected healthcare provider to a user. If a claim limitation, under its
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or
`
`practices and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between
`
`people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing HumanActivity” grouping
`
`of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One:
`
`YES).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/025,129
`Art Unit: 3626
`
`Step 2A Prong Two
`
`Page 4
`
`8.
`
`This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims
`
`are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including a “a health
`
`management system’, “processor”, “a memory device coupled to the processor and
`
`having a program stored thereon for execution by the processor to perform operations’,
`
`“a non-transitory machine readable storage device having instruction for execution by a
`
`processor of the machine” , are additional elements that are recited at a high level of
`
`generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the
`
`exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
`
`9.
`
`The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that
`
`do notalter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are
`
`performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations
`
`to the indicated claims beyond a generallinking to a technological environment. See:
`
`MPEP 2106.05(h).
`
`10.
`
`The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions
`
`to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in
`
`combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
`
`application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract
`
`idea.
`
`11.
`
`Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
`
`application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract
`
`idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/025,129
`Art Unit: 3626
`
`Step 2B
`
`Page 5
`
`12.
`
`Theclaims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
`
`significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to
`
`integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements
`
`to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mereinstructions to apply the
`
`exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a
`
`generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
`
`13.
`
`Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to
`
`amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic
`
`componentsthat are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or
`
`token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions
`
`in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not
`
`add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a
`
`technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
`
`14.—Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to
`
`amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic
`
`componentsthat are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional
`
`activities previously knownto the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional
`
`elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventionalfunctions that
`
`do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The published specification
`
`supports this conclusion as follows:
`
`e
`
`[0012] The functions or algorithms described herein may be implemented
`
`in software in one embodiment. The software may consist of computer
`
`executable instructions stored on computer readable media or computer
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/025,129
`Art Unit: 3626
`
`Page 6
`
`readable storage device such as one or more non-transitory memories or other
`
`type of hardware based storage devices, either local or networked. Further, such
`
`functions correspond to modules, which maybe software, hardware, firmware or
`
`any combination thereof. Multiple functions may be performed in one or more
`
`modules as desired, and the embodiments described are merely examples. The
`
`software may be executed on a digital signal processor, ASIC, microprocessor,
`
`or other type of processor operating on a computer system, such as a personal
`
`computer, server or other computer system, turning such computer system into a
`
`specifically programmed machine.
`
`e
`
`[0060] FIG. 5 is a block schematic diagram of a computer system 500 to
`
`implement methods according to example embodiments. All components need
`
`not be used in various embodiments. One example computing device in the form
`
`of a computer 500, mayinclude a processing unit 502, memory 503, removable
`
`storage 510, and non-removable storage 512. Although the example computing
`
`deviceis illustrated and described as computer 500, the computing device may
`
`be in different forms in different embodiments. For example, the computing
`
`device may instead be a smartphone, a tablet, smartwatch, or other computing
`
`device including the same or similar elements asillustrated and described with
`
`regard to FIG. 5. Devices such as smartphones, tablets, and smartwatches are
`
`generally collectively referred to as mobile devices. Further, although the various
`
`data storage elementsareillustrated as part of the computer 500, the storage
`
`may also or alternatively include cloud-based storage accessible via a network,
`
`such as the Internet.
`
`e
`
`[0061] Memory 503 mayinclude volatile memory 514 and non-volatile
`
`memory 508. Computer 500 mayinclude - or have access to a computing
`
`environmentthat includes - a variety of computer readable media, such as
`
`volatile memory 514 and non-volatile memory 508, removable storage 510 and
`
`non-removable storage 512. Computer storage includes random access memory
`
`(RAM), read only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read-only memory
`
`(EPROM) & electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM),
`
`flash memory or other memory technologies, compact disc read-only memory
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/025,129
`Art Unit: 3626
`
`Page 7
`
`(CD ROM), Digital Versatile Disks (DVD) or other optical disk storage, magnetic
`
`cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage
`
`devices capable of storing computer-readable instructions for execution to
`
`perform functions described herein.
`
`15.—Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the
`
`additional elements to implement the concept described abovein the identification of
`
`abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality ina
`
`particular technological environment.
`
`16.|Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually
`
`and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract
`
`idea (Step 2B: NO).
`
`17.
`
`Dependent claim(s) 2 — 8, 10 — 12, and 14 — 15, when analyzed as a whole,
`
`considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are
`
`held to be patentineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited
`
`limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea
`
`without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent
`
`claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to
`
`their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`18.
`
`—_In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103)is incorrect, any
`
`correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/025,129
`Art Unit: 3626
`
`Page 8
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be
`
`the same under either status.
`
`19.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousnessrejections setforth 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.
`
`20.
`
`Claim(s) 1-6, 9, and 13 - 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Eddyet al., herein after Eddy (U.S. Patent Number 8,538,773 B2) in
`
`view of Mohlenbrocketal., herein after Mohlenbrock (U.S. Publication Number
`
`2014/0081664 A1).
`
`Claim 1: Eddy teaches a health management system comprising:
`
`a processor (Figure 1; column 4, lines 54 — 60 discloses a data processing
`
`apparatus includes a processor);
`
`a searchable (column 5, lines 55-64 discloses a graphical user interface with
`
`buttons, menus, drop-downlists, virtual knobs and dials, as well as text input fields)
`
`multi-dimensional data representation of the performance of an entire health care
`
`delivery system accessible by the processor (Figure 1; column 4, line 54 to column 6,
`
`line 57 discloses the arrangement of processor, data receiving logic, health outcome
`
`metric determination logic, health outcome metric reduction logic, quality determination
`
`logic, and scale compilation logic permit computation of a global quality score to
`
`measure how well the delivery system accomplishes its goals (performance of the entire
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/025,129
`Art Unit: 3626
`
`Page 9
`
`healthcare system)), in which the performance of every healthcare provider, including
`
`downstream providers, that are delivering services is distilled down to a clinically
`
`credible measure of actual versus expected performanceat analytic points across a
`
`comprehensiveset of quality outcomes and resource utilization measures (Figure 1;
`
`column 6, lines 31 — 36 discloses the quality determination logic compares the actual
`
`reduction in risk to the potential reduction in risk (actual versus expected performance));
`
`a memory device coupled to the processor and having a program stored
`
`thereon for execution by the processor (Figure 8; column 19, lines 20 — 38 discloses
`
`main memory for storing temporary variables or other intermediate information during
`
`execution of instructions by processor) to perform operations comprising:
`
`creating the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain performance
`
`measures of a selected healthcare provider (Figure 7; column 10, lines 11 — 59
`
`discloses the global quality score compares the actual reduction in risk to the potential
`
`reduction in risk); and
`
`accessing the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain performance
`
`measures of the selected healthcare provider (Figure 7; column 10, lines 51 — 67
`
`discloses the score adjusts for factors such as age, race, and sex, and measures how
`
`well the delivery system or community accomplishes its goals, and thereby affect the
`
`quality of care that is actually delivered to a population).
`
`Eddyfails to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Mohlenbrock
`
`as cited:
`
`wherein the performance matrix (paragraphs 11 and 12 disclose a Medical
`
`Value Index (MVI) (performance matrix) is calculated for each healthcare provider that
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/025,129
`Art Unit: 3626
`
`Page 10
`
`objectively and accurately assesses the major metrics of value for inpatient healthcare)
`
`has multiple dimensions including individual health care providers, sites of service,
`
`quality outcomes and resource use measures, type of patients, time periods covered,
`
`geographic location of provider and patient, and the patient's payer (paragraphs 134,
`
`135, 137, 138, and 154 disclose data is originally sourced from hospital records, public
`
`data like MedPar, insurance companies and physician's offices; metrics include
`
`resource consumption, types of cases treated, geographic area, and health insurers’
`
`financial data; each hospital's outcomes metrics are depicted by a single bar graph; the
`
`height of each clinical component indicates the relative contribution to the overall score
`
`and the degree to which the indicator was improved or degraded over three years or
`
`more).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention
`
`to expand the method of Eddyto further include technologies, processes, and
`
`algorithms to quantify medical quality and costefficiencies for the purpose of creating
`
`financial incentives for rewarding medical providers (hospitals and physicians) by
`
`objectively defined metrics of clinical quality and costefficiency improvements that are
`
`trended over a multi-year period to determine a “Medical Value Index” as disclosed by
`
`Mohlenbrock.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been
`
`motivated to expand the method of Eddyin this way by objectively defined, appropriate
`
`reimbursements for the hospital and physician providers who are able to create net
`
`savings by improving financial and clinical outcomes (Mohlenbrock: paragraph 9).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/025,129
`Art Unit: 3626
`
`Page 11
`
`Claim 2: Eddy and Mohlenbrockteach the health management system of
`
`claim 1. Eddy teaches a system wherein the clinically credible measure comprises at
`
`least one of readmission rate and complication rate (column 12, lines 52 — 55 discloses
`
`calculating outcomes suchasstrokes, onset of diabetes, diabetes complications, etc.).
`
`Claim 3: Eddy and Mohlenbrockteach the health management system of
`
`claim 1.
`
`Eddyfails to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Mohlenbrock
`
`as cited:
`
`wherein the healthcare providers include at least multiple of hospitals, nursing
`
`homes, home health care agencies, specialists, and physicians (paragraphs 2, 10, and
`
`62 disclose hospitals and physicians are evaluated as well as pharmacies and
`
`laboratories).
`
`The motivation to combine the teachings of Eddy and Molhenbrockare
`
`discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
`
`Claim 4: Eddy and Mohlenbrockteach the health management system of
`
`claim 1. Eddy teaches a system wherein the types of patients include at least one of
`
`encounters for a procedure, encounters for chronic or acute disease management,
`
`disease cohorts of patients, episodes of care, and population management (column 8,
`
`line 66 to column 9, line 31 discloses baseline health outcome metric based on quality
`
`adjustedlife-years for a given population and chronic untreated hypertension taken into
`
`consideration when calculating a health outcome metric).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/025,129
`Art Unit: 3626
`
`Page 12
`
`Claim 5: Eddy and Mohlenbrockteach the health management system of
`
`claim 1.
`
`Eddyfails to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Mohlenbrock
`
`as cited:
`
`wherein a performance dimension of the performance matrix is broken into a
`
`resources portion and a quality outcomes portion (paragraphs 15, 19, and 27 disclose
`
`the MVI is calculated based on improvements or degradations in quality and financial
`
`outcomes and in patient metrics of quality that constitute the MVI include resource
`
`consumption).
`
`The motivation to combine the teachings of Eddy and Molhenbrockare
`
`discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
`
`Claim 6: Eddy and Mohlenbrockteach the health management system of
`
`claim 5.
`
`Eddyfails to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Mohlenbrock
`
`as cited:
`
`wherein the resource portions includes at least one of length of stay, laboratory,
`
`pharmacy, and radiology (paragraph 61 discloses Length of Stay (LOS) for selected
`
`Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs)), and wherein the outcomesportion includesat least
`
`one of readmissions, complications, emergency room visits, and mortality (paragraph
`
`263 discloses MORB is a measurementof a hospital's morbidity (complications) using a
`
`monitor on length of stay).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/025,129
`Art Unit: 3626
`
`Page 13
`
`The motivation to combine the teachings of Eddy and Molhenbrockare
`
`discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
`
`Claim 9: Eddy teaches a non-transitory machine readable storage device
`
`having instructions for execution by a processor of the machine (Figure 1; Column 4,
`
`line 54 through column 5, line 12 discloses non-transitory computer readable storage
`
`medium storing one or more sequences ofinstructions for determining a quality of care
`
`provided by a healthcare provider to individuals in a population, the instructions are
`
`executed by processor coupled to data receiving logic, which receives patient
`
`information) to perform:
`
`accessing payer data for multiple providers in a health care delivery system
`
`(paragraph 34 discloses processes and algorithms that combine inpatient quality
`
`outcomes, ambulatory quality measures, and health insurer’s financial data (payer data)
`
`into actionable information);
`
`conforming the accessed payer data to a standard format (paragraph 12
`
`discloses the Medical Value Index is presented into an easily interpreted formatlike the
`
`Dow Jones indice);
`
`populating, based on the accessed payer data, a multi-dimensional data
`
`representation of the performance of an entire health care delivery system accessible
`
`by the processor (Figure 1; column 4, line 54 to column 6, line 57 discloses the
`
`arrangement of processor, data receiving logic, health outcome metric determination
`
`logic, health outcome metric reduction logic, quality determination logic, and scale
`
`compilation logic permit computation of a global quality score to measure how well the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/025,129
`Art Unit: 3626
`
`Page 14
`
`delivery system accomplishes its goals (performance of the entire healthcare system)),
`
`in which the performance of every healthcare provider, including downstream providers,
`
`that are delivering services is distilled downto a clinically credible measure of actual
`
`versus expected performanceat analytic points across a comprehensivesetof quality
`
`outcomes and resourceutilization measures (Figure 1; column 6, lines 31 — 36
`
`discloses the quality determination logic compares the actual reduction in risk to the
`
`potential reduction in risk (actual versus expected performance))
`
`creating the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain performance
`
`measures of a selected healthcare provider (Figure 7; column 10, lines 11 — 59
`
`discloses the global quality score compares the actual reduction in risk to the potential
`
`reduction in risk); and
`
`accessing the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain performance
`
`measures of the selected healthcare provider (Figure 7; column 10, lines 51 — 67
`
`discloses the score adjusts for factors such as age, race, and sex, and measures how
`
`well the delivery system or community accomplishes its goals, and thereby affect the
`
`quality of care that is actually delivered to a population).
`
`Eddyfails to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Mohlenbrock
`
`as cited:
`
`wherein the performance matrix (paragraphs 11 and 12 disclose a Medical
`
`Value Index (MVI) (performance matrix) is calculated for each healthcare provider that
`
`objectively and accurately assesses the major metrics of value for inpatient healthcare)
`
`has multiple dimensions including individual health care providers, sites of service,
`
`quality outcomes and resource use measures, type of patients, time periods covered,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/025,129
`Art Unit: 3626
`
`Page 15
`
`geographic location of provider and patient and the patient's payer (paragraphs 134,
`
`135, 137, 138, and 154 disclose data is originally sourced from hospital records, public
`
`data like MedPar, insurance companies and physician's offices; metrics include
`
`resource consumption, types of cases treated, geographic area, and health insurers’
`
`financial data; each hospital's outcomes metrics are depicted by a single bar graph; the
`
`height of each clinical component indicates the relative contribution to the overall score
`
`and the degree to which the indicator was improved or degraded over three years or
`
`more).
`
`The motivation to combine the teachings of Eddy and Molhenbrockare
`
`discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
`
`System claim 13 repeat the subject matter of claims 1. As the underlying
`
`processes of claim 13 has been shownto befully disclosed by the teachings of Eddy
`
`and Molhenbrockin the above rejection of claims 1; as such, this limitations (claim 13)
`
`is rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 1 and incorporated herein.
`
`Claim 14: Eddy and Mohlenbrockteach the health management system of
`
`claim 13. Eddy teaches a system wherein the clinically credible measure comprises
`
`at least one of readmission rate and complication rate (column 12, lines 52-55 discloses
`
`calculating outcomes suchasstrokes, onset of diabetes, diabetes complications, etc.).
`
`Eddyfails to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Mohlenbrock
`
`as cited:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/025,129
`Art Unit: 3626
`
`Page 16
`
`wherein the performance matrix (paragraphs 11 and 12 disclose a Medical
`
`Value Index (MVI) (performance matrix) is calculated for each healthcare provider that
`
`objectively and accurately assesses the major metrics of value for inpatient healthcare)
`
`has multiple dimensions including individual health care providers, sites of service,
`
`quality outcomes and resource use measures, type of patients, time periods covered,
`
`geographic location of provider and patient and the patient's payer (paragraphs 134,
`
`135, 137, 138, and 154 disclose datais originally sourced from hospital records, public
`
`data like MedPar, insurance companies and physician's offices; metrics include
`
`resource consumption, types of cases treated, geographic area, and health insurers’
`
`financial data; each hospital's outcomes metrics are depicted by a single bar graph; the
`
`height of each clinical component indicates the relative contribution to the overall score
`
`and the degree to which the indicator was improved or degraded over three years or
`
`more),
`
`wherein the healthcare providers include at least multiple of hospitals, nursing
`
`homes, home health care agencies, specialists, and physicians (paragraphs 2, 10, and
`
`62 disclose hospitals and physicians are evaluated as well as pharmacies and
`
`laboratories),
`
`wherein the types of patients include at least one of encounters for a procedure,
`
`encountersfor chronic or acute disease management, disease cohorts of patients,
`
`episodes of care, and population management (column 8, line 66 to column Q, line 31
`
`discloses baseline health outcome metric based on quality adjustedlife-years fora
`
`given population and chronic untreated hypertension taken into consideration when
`
`calculating a health outcome metric),
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/025,129
`Art Unit: 3626
`
`Page 17
`
`wherein a performance dimension of the performance matrix is broken into a
`
`resources portion and an outcomes portion (paragraphs 15, 19, and 27 disclose the MVI
`
`is calculated based on improvements or degradations in quality and financial outcomes
`
`and in patient metrics of quality that constitute the MVI include resource consumption),
`
`wherein the resource portions include at least one of length of stay, laboratory,
`
`pharmacy, and radiology (paragraph 61 discloses Length of Stay (LOS) for selected
`
`Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs)),
`
`wherein the outcomes portion includes at least one of readmissions,
`
`complications, emergency room visits, and mortality (paragraph 263 discloses MORB is
`
`a measurement of a hospital's morbidity (complications) using a monitor on length of
`
`stay).
`
`The motivation to combine the teachings of Eddy and Molhenbrockare
`
`discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
`
`Conclusion
`
`21.
`
`+The prior art made of record and notrelied upon is considered pertinent to
`
`applicant's disclosure. U.S. Publication Number 2006/0161456 Ai (Baker etal.)
`
`discloses doctor performance evaluation toll for consumers.
`
`22.
`
`Anyinquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to KRISTINE K RAPILLO whosetelephone number is
`
`(571)270-3325. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30 - 4 pm.
`
`Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video
`
`conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-basedcollaboration tool. To schedule an
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/025,129
`Art Unit: 3626
`
`Page 18
`
`interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request
`
`(AIR) at http:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Fonya Long can be reached on 571-270-5096. The fax phone number for
`
`the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be
`
`obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is
`
`available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center,
`
`visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-
`
`center for more information