Skip to main content

Full text of "USPTO Patents Application 09876311"

See other formats


1-15428 

REMARKS 

Responsive to the outstanding Office Action, applicant has carefully studied the 
Examiner's rejections. Favorable reconsideration of the application in light of the following 
amendments and detailed arguments is respectfully requested. 

The claims pending in this application are claims 1-19. Claims 4 and 10 have been 
amended herein, and claims 14-19 are newly presented. It should be noted that claims 4 
and 10 have been amended to refer to the general programme areas being at least some of 
diet, exercise, smoking and education. It is further submitted that no new matter has been 
presented in these amendments, nor in the claims newly presented. 

REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC §102 
Claims 1-13 were rejected under 35 USC 102(e) as being anticipated by Brown (US 
6,151,586). The Examiner notes that Brown discloses a method of incentivising members of 
a disease management programme to comply with the programme. The Examiner, in detail, 
states that Brown shows each element of pending claim 1 in paragraph 2A, and in 
paragrapghs 2B-20 details each of the dependent claims and the other independent claims 
in view of Brown. 

In response thereto, applicants would first like to detail the present invention as 
defined in independent claim 1 . Claim 1 defines a method of incentivising members of a 
disease management programme to comply with the programme. The method comprises 
first defining a plurality of general programme areas and a plurality of specific programme 



9 



1-15428 

areas. Each of the plurality of general programme areas are associated with each of the 
diseases managed by the programme. Each of the plurality of specific programme areas are 
associated only with those diseases managed by the programme to which the specific 
programme area is determined to be of particular benefit to a member afflicted with the 
disease. Points are awardied to a member for each of the programme areas in which the 
member participates, only if the member is afflicted with a disease which is associated with 
that particular programme area. Finally, rewards are allocated to the member if the points 
awarded to the member accumulate to a predetermined amount. 

As noted above, the examiner has stated that US 6,151,586 (Brown) in col 12, lines 
18-23, discloses the defining of a plurality of general programme areas and a plurality of 
specific programme areas and that Brown (col 12; lines 18-23) discloses the associating of 
each of the plurality of general programme areas with each of the diseases managed by the 
programme and associating each of the plurality of specific programme areas only with 
specific diseases. 

Applicants respectfully disagree with the examiner, in terms of what is disclosed by 
Brown. The portions of the Brown document referenced here merely disclose that there is a 
customised health management program for different diseases. This disclosure simply does 
not disclose having 2 classes of programme areas as claimed: programme areas which 
apply to all diseases and programme areas which only apply to some diseases. This 
distinction is clearly made in independent claim 1 . 



10 



1-15428 

Further, claim 1 of the present invention requires allocating points to a member for 
each of the programme areas in which the member participates if the member is afflicted with 
a disease which is associated with that particular programme area. 

It is respectfully submitted that, contrary to the Examiner's assertions, Brown does not 
disclose this. Brown discloses rewarding an individual that is deemed compliant if they 
comply with all the requirements. This teaching of Brown is acknowledged by the examiner 
on page 3, paragraph B, of the official action where he sets out that "...both criteria of 
questions being answered and measurements being within limits must be met if the coupon 
is to be given." (emphasis added). Thus Brown deals with overall compliance or non 
compliance while the present invention deals with points allocation in the separate areas. 
The teaching of the present invention to incentivise members based upon their adherence to 
various areas is thus not present in Brown. 

The applicant also submits that it is not at all surprising that Brown does not disclose 
these elements as the Brown reference is clearly directed towards a computerised reward 
system. In contrast, the present invention as claimed in claim 1 is focused more on the 
points and reward methodology to enhance member compliance, as opposed to the specific 
computer system used. 

The Brown document discloses showing an educational programme to the individual 
but nowhere in the document discloses ensuring that the individual complies with at least 
some of diet, exercise, smoking and education. Again this is not surprising as the Brown 
document is not at all concerned with a plurality of general programme areas with which all 



11 



1-15428 

members of the disease management program must comply. 

In the light of the above, the applicant submits that claim 1 is in fact new and inventive 
in the light of the Brown reference. 

The newly presented dependent claims are directed towards the fact that the amount 
of the reward is related to the amount of points accumulated by the member and that the 
reward may be a cash payout, or special options on services such as airplane tickets, hotel 
accommodation and car rentals. In contrast, the Brown document simply discloses the 
issuing of a coupon if the program has been complied with. There is no disclosure of larger 
or smaller prizes depending on the level of compliance. Furthermore, the rewards disclosed 
by the present method would seem to be somewhat more meaningful than that disclosed by 
Brown (free yoghurt). 

Similarly, independent claim 8 discloses a method of incentivising members of a 
disease management programme to comply with the programme. The method comprises 
first defining a plurality of general programme areas and a plurality of specific programme 
areas. Each of the plurality of general programme areas are associated with each of the 
diseases managed by the programme. Each of the plurality of specific programme areas are 
associated only with those diseases managed by the programme to which the specific 
programme area is determined to be of particular benefit to a member afflicted with the 
disease. A measurable is defined within each of the general and specific programme areas 
so that a member's performance within said programme area can be ascertained. A 
minimum level for each measurable is defined, which minimum level indicates a minimum 



12 



1-15428 

required level of member performance within each of the programme areas. Points are 
awarded to a member if the member obtains the minimum level of a measurable for a 
particular programme area only if the member is afflicted with a disease which is associated 
with that particular programme area. Rewards are thus allocated to the member if the points 
awarded to the member accumulate to a predetermined amount. 

As with claim 1 , it is submitted that the disclosure of Brown does not disclose having 2 
classes of programme areas as claimed: programme areas which apply to all diseases and 
programme areas which only apply to some diseases. Also, contrary to the Examiner's 
assertions, Brown discloses rewarding an individual that is deemed compliant if they comply 
with all the requirements, as opposed to the teaching of the present invention. Again, Brown 
deals with overall compliance or non compliance while the present invention deals with points 
allocation in the separate areas. The teaching of the present invention to incentivise 
members based upon their adherence to various areas is thus not present in Brown. Claim 8 
is thus allowable over the applied art of record. 

Independent claims 12 and 13 are similar. Claim 12 defines a method of incentivising 
members of a disease management programme to comply with the programme. The method 
comprises defining a plurality of general programme areas and a plurality of specific 
programme areas. Each of the plurality of general programme areas are associated with 
each of the diseases managed by the programme. Each of the plurality of specific 
programme areas are only associated with those diseases managed by the programme to 
which the specific programme area is determined to be of particular benefit to a member who 



13 



1-15428 

is predisposed to being afflicted with the disease. Points are awarded to a member for each 
of the programme areas in which the member participates, only if the member is predisposed 
to being afflicted with a disease which is associated with that particular programme area. 
Rewards are allocated to the member if the points awarded to the member accumulate to a 
predetermined amount. 

Independent claim 13 defines a method of incentivising members of a disease 
management programme to comply with the programme. A plurality of general programme 
areas and a plurality of specific programme areas are defined. Each of the plurality of 
general programme areas are associated with each of the diseases managed by the 
programme. Each of the plurality of specific programme areas are associated only with 
those diseases managed by the programme to which the specific programme area is 
determined to be of particular benefit to a member who is predisposed to being afflicted with 
the disease. A measurable is defined within each of the general and specific programme 
areas so that a member's performance within said programme area can be ascertained. 
Likewise, minimum levels for each measurable are defined, which minimum level indicates a 
minimum required level of member performance within each of the programme areas. Points 
are awarded to a member if the member obtains the minimum level of a measurable for a 
particular programme area only if the member is predisposed to being afflicted with a disease 
which is associated with that particular programme area. Rewards are allocated to the 
member if the points awarded to the member accumulate to a predetermined amount. 



14 



■V 



1-15428 



It can be seen that the same arguments that were applicable to Independent claim 1 
are applicable to independent claims 12 and 13, and these claims are thus allowable over 
the applied art of record. 

For the reasons stated above, it is respectfully submitted that independent claims 1 , 8, 
12 and 13 are allowable over the applied art of record. Claims 2-7, 9-1 1 and 14-19 depend, 
directly or indirectly, from what are believed to be allowable base claims for the reasons 
stated hereinabove, and are believed to be allowable based, at least, upon this dependence. 



Claims 1-1 9 are thus believed to be allowable. It is therefore submitted that the 
application is now in condition for allowance, and action towards that end is respectfully 
requested. 

Should the Examiner wish to modify the application in any way, applicant's attorney 
suggests a telephone interview In order to expedite the prosecution of the application. 



Marshall & Melhorn, LLC 
Four SeaGate - 8th Floor 
Toledo, Ohio 43604 
(419) 249-7114 
(419) 249-5171 Facsimile 



SUMMARY 




Respectfully submitted. 



ATTORNEYS 



Mark A.NHixon ^ 
Registration No. 44,766 



15