Patent decision
- BL number
- O/612/20
- Concerning rights in
- GB1517371.9
- Hearing Officer
- Mrs C L Davies
- Decision date
- 7 December 2020
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- ProEventa, Inc.
- Provisions discussed
- PA 1977 Sections 1(2)(c), 1(2)(d) and 76
- Keywords
- Added subject matter, Excluded fields (refused)
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
The application discusses why it is important to recognize and treat problems and issues that prevent goals and other objectives from being achieved. However, electronic systems, equipment, software, and processes for tracking, treating, and recording results, such as for individuals with special needs, have not improved as significantly. For example, some organizations still use paper documents and charts to track individuals' information or a single computing system available from only one location to enter and review data. As a result, viewing, updating, managing, and sharing, relevant information may be more difficult than it should be.
The invention relates to a system and method for tracking outcome specific data. This is achieved by receiving input that defines accounts for service providers as part of a client management programme, where the accounts are stored in a server. Clients are assigned to at least one provider as selected by an administrator. Providers are prompted automatically to provide health data about each of the clients and periodically sending/updating that data. The data received from the providers is compiled and a rule is set to obtain a score associated with the clients’ progress against at least one goal using devices communicating with the server. The compiled data and the score are analysed to determine a status of the client and whether the data has reached a threshold to become significant. Upon the threshold becoming significant an alert including the compiled data is automatically communicated to the provider assigned to the client.
The Hearing Officer agreed with the examiner’s reasoning which followed the four step Aerotel test to determine whether there was a technical contribution and applied the AT&T signposts as modified in HTC. The contribution was not found to provide the required technical effect and the claimed invention related solely to a program for a computer and a method for doing business as such, so the application did not meet the requirements of section 1(2)(c). The Hearing Officer also agreed with the examiner that a dependent claim also relates to presentation of information and therefore not meeting the requirement of section 1(2)(d). The Hearing Officer also agreed with the examiner in considering the claims to contain added matter, so the application did not meet the requirements of section 76. The application was refused under section 18(3).
Full decision O/612/20 
221Kb
