IP Library Granted Patent US 12,266,018
Granted Patent B1
US 12,266,018 · App. 17/862,333 · Granted Apr 1, 2025

Use determination risk coverage datastructure for on-demand and increased efficiency coverage detection and rebalancing apparatuses, processes and systems

Inventors: Anthony Miller (Minneapolis, MN); David Dickey (Minneapolis, MN); Henning Chiv (Castro Valley, CA); Matthew Chock (Eagan, MN); Glen Eiden (Forest Lake, MN); Trevor Fast (San Francisco, CA); Shawn Wagoner (Minneapolis, MN); Matthew Wiandt (Bloomington, MN); Jessica Zeaske (Minneapolis, MN); Nels Marcus Thygeson (San Rafael, CA); Charley Hastings (Cape Coral, FL); Jason Haupt (Maple Grove, MN); Mark Peterson (Eagan, MN); Maxwell L. Peterson (Minneapolis, MN); Benjamin Kowitt (Philadelphia, PA); Thomas Anton Klun (Minneapolis, MN)
Assignee: Bind Benefits, Inc.
G06Q40/08G06Q10/067
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,266,018
App. No.
17/862,333
Granted
Apr 1, 2025
Kind
B1
Abstract

The Use Determination Risk Coverage Datastructure for On-Demand and Increased Efficiency Coverage Detection and Rebalancing Apparatuses, Processes and Systems (“UDRCD”) transforms coverage enrollment request, event signal, ACGG request, search request, props ratios calculation request, encounters build request, episodes build request, price calculation request, price range generation request, price range lookup request inputs via UDRCD components into coverage enrollment response, add-in recommendation, ACGG response, search response, props ratios calculation response, encounters build response, episodes build response, price calculation response, price range generation resp., price range lookup resp. outputs. An episodes build request datastructure identifying an encounter type is obtained. An anchor encounter datastructure is selected. A set of other encounter datastructures for the anchor encounter datastructure is determined. A props ratio relevance function associated with the encounter type is determined, and used to determine a set of accessory encounter datastructures for the anchor encounter datastructure. An episode datastructure is generated.

Claims (94)

1. A system comprising:

one or more processors and at least one memory storing processor-executable instructions, that, when executed by any one of the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:

obtaining an episodes build request datastructure, the episodes build request datastructure structured including a data field for identifying an encounter type;

comparing the encounter type with a value specified in a corresponding data field of a set of available encounter datastructures;

selecting an anchor encounter datastructure, in which the value specified in the corresponding data field of the anchor encounter datastructure matches the encounter type;

determining analysis window rules associated with the encounter type, the analysis window rules specifying at least one of: a pre- window time period, a post-window time period, a time period length;

determining an analysis window for the anchor encounter datastructure using the analysis window rules and a service date value specified in a corresponding data field of the anchor encounter datastructure;

determining an enrollee identifier value specified in a corresponding data field of the anchor encounter datastructure;

determining a set of other encounter datastructures for the anchor encounter datastructure, in which a service date value specified in a corresponding data field of each other encounter datastructure is in the analysis window for the anchor encounter datastructure, and in which the determined enrollee identifier value matches an enrollee identifier value specified in a corresponding data field of each other encounter datastructure;

determining a props ratio relevance function associated with the encounter type, the props ratio relevance function structured classifying claim codes as either relevant or irrelevant to the encounter type;

determining an encounter relevance classification for each other encounter datastructure in the set of other encounter datastructures using the props ratio relevance function;

determining a set of accessory encounter datastructures for the anchor encounter datastructure, the set of accessory encounter datastructures corresponding to other encounter datastructures for the anchor encounter datastructure classified as relevant based on the encounter relevance classification; and

generating an episode datastructure structured including a set of data fields for identifying: the anchor encounter datastructure, the set of accessory encounter datastructures, and the encounter type.

2. The system of claim 1 , in which the data field for identifying the encounter type is structured identifying a coverage family.

3. The system of claim 1 , in which the data field for identifying the encounter type is structured identifying an encounter type.

4. The system of claim 1 , in which the instructions for determining the analysis window rules cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:

determining an episode archetype datastructure associated with the encounter type, wherein the episode archetype datastructure is associated with a plurality of encounter types; and

retrieving the analysis window rules from a corresponding data field of the episode archetype datastructure.

5. The system of claim 1 , in which the instructions for determining the analysis window for the anchor encounter datastructure cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:

adding the pre-window time period associated with the encounter type to the service date value associated with the anchor encounter datastructure.

6. The system of claim 1 , in which the instructions for determining the analysis window for the anchor encounter datastructure cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:

adding the post-window time period associated with the encounter type to the service date value associated with the anchor encounter datastructure.

7. The system of claim 1 , in which the instructions for determining the analysis window for the anchor encounter datastructure cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:

determining a first analysis window based on an event corresponding to the service date value associated with the anchor encounter datastructure;

determining a second analysis window based on a repeat event corresponding to a later service date value associated with the anchor encounter datastructure; and

combining the first analysis window and the second analysis window into the analysis window for the anchor encounter datastructure, in which the first analysis window and the second analysis window are overlapping analysis windows.

8. The system of claim 1 , in which the props ratio relevance function associated with the encounter type is structured as a best fit cut line, in which claim codes above the best fit cut line are classified as relevant and claim codes below the best fit cut line are classified as irrelevant.

9. The system of claim 1 , in which the instructions for determining an encounter relevance classification for each other encounter datastructures cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:

determining a claim code associated with a selected other encounter datastructure;

determining a props ratio associated with the determined claim code;

determining a claim code relevance classification for the claim code by evaluating the determined props ratio using the props ratio relevance function, in which the determined claim code is classified as either relevant or irrelevant to the encounter type; and

setting the encounter relevance classification for the selected other encounter datastructure to the claim code relevance classification for the determined claim code.

10. The system of claim 1 , in which the instructions for determining an encounter relevance classification for each other encounter datastructure cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising :

determining claim codes associated with a selected other encounter datastructure;

determining a props ratio associated with each of the determined claim codes;

classifying each of the determined claim codes as either relevant or irrelevant to the encounter type by evaluating the determined props ratio for a respective determined claim code using the props ratio relevance function; and

determining the encounter relevance classification for the selected other encounter datastructure based on a proportion of the determined claim codes classified as relevant.

11. The system of claim 1 , in which the instructions for determining an encounter relevance classification for each other encounter datastructure cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:

determining claim codes associated with a selected other encounter datastructure;

determining a props ratio associated with each of the determined claim codes;

determining an average of the determined props ratios; and

determining the encounter relevance classification for the selected other encounter datastructure by evaluating the determined average of the determined props ratios using the props ratio relevance function.

12. The system of claim 1 , the operations further comprising:

determining the value of an encounter attribute of the anchor encounter datastructure, in which the encounter attribute is one of: a provider location, a practitioner, or a place of service; and

setting the value of a corresponding episode attribute of the episode datastructure to the determined value of the encounter attribute.

13. The system of claim 1 , the operations further comprising:

calculating an episode cost associated with the episode datastructure; and

setting the value of a corresponding data field of the episode datastructure to the calculated episode cost.

14. The system of claim 13 , in which the instructions for calculating the episode cost cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:

determining an encounter cost specified in a corresponding data field of the anchor encounter datastructure;

determining an encounter cost specified in a corresponding data field of each accessory encounter datastructure in the set of accessory encounter datastructures; and

calculating the episode cost as a sum of the determined encounter costs.

15. The system of claim 13 , in which the instructions for calculating the episode cost cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:

determining an episode archetype datastructure associated with the encounter type, in which the episode archetype datastructure is associated with a plurality of encounter types;

retrieving episode cost calculation rules from a corresponding data field of the episode archetype datastructure; and

calculating the episode cost in accordance with the retrieved episode cost calculation rules.

16. One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing processor- executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:

obtaining an episodes build request datastructure the episodes build request datastructure structured including a data field for identifying an encounter type;

comparing the encounter type with a value specified in a corresponding data field of a set of available encounter datastructures;

selecting an anchor encounter datastructure, in which the value specified in the corresponding data field of the anchor encounter datastructure matches the encounter type;

determining analysis window rules associated with the encounter type, the analysis window rules specifying at least one of: a pre- window time period, a post-window time period, or a time period length;

determining an analysis window for the anchor encounter datastructure using the analysis window rules and a service date value specified in a corresponding data field of the anchor encounter datastructure;

determining an enrollee identifier value specified in a corresponding data field of the anchor encounter datastructure;

determining a set of other encounter datastructures for the anchor encounter datastructure, in which a service date value specified in a corresponding data field of each other encounter datastructure is in the analysis window for the anchor encounter datastructure, and in which the determined enrollee identifier value matches an enrollee identifier value specified in a corresponding data field of each other encounter datastructure;

determining a props ratio relevance function associated with the encounter type, the props ratio relevance function structured classifying claim codes as either relevant or irrelevant to the encounter type;

determining an encounter relevance classification for each other encounter datastructure in the set of other encounter datastructures using the props ratio relevance function;

determining a set of accessory encounter datastructures for the anchor encounter datastructure, the set of accessory encounter datastructures corresponding to other encounter datastructures for the anchor encounter datastructure classified as relevant based on the encounter relevance classification; and

generating an episode datastructure structured including a set of data fields for identifying: the anchor encounter datastructure, the set of accessory encounter datastructures, and the encounter type.

17. A system comprising:

means to store processor-executable instructions; and

means to process processor-executable instructions, wherein the processor-executable instructions are configured to cause the means to process the processor-executable instructions to perform operations comprising:

obtaining an episodes build request datastructure, the episodes build request datastructure structured including a data field for identifying an encounter type;

comparing the encounter type with a value specified in a corresponding data field of a set of available encounter datastructures;

selecting an anchor encounter datastructure, in which the value specified in the corresponding data field of the anchor encounter datastructure matches the encounter type;

determining analysis window rules associated with the encounter type, the analysis window rules specifying at least one of: a pre- window time period, a post-window time period, or a time period length;

determining an analysis window for the anchor encounter datastructure using the analysis window rules and a service date value specified in a corresponding data field of the anchor encounter datastructure;

determining an enrollee identifier value specified in a corresponding data field of the anchor encounter datastructure;

determining a set of other encounter datastructures for the anchor encounter datastructure, in which a service date value specified in a corresponding data field of each other encounter datastructure is in the analysis window for the anchor encounter datastructure, and in which the determined enrollee identifier value matches an enrollee identifier value specified in a corresponding data field of each other encounter datastructure;

determining a props ratio relevance function associated with the encounter type, the props ratio relevance function structured classifying claim codes as either relevant or irrelevant to the encounter type;

determining an encounter relevance classification for each other encounter datastructure in the set of other encounter datastructures using the props ratio relevance function;

determining a set of accessory encounter datastructures for the anchor encounter datastructure, the set of accessory encounter datastructures corresponding to other encounter datastructures for the anchor encounter datastructure classified as relevant based on the encounter relevance classification; and

generating an episode datastructure structured including a set of data fields for identifying: the anchor encounter datastructure, the set of accessory encounter datastructures, and the encounter type.

18. A processor-executed method comprising:

obtaining, by one or more processors, an episodes build request datastructure, the episodes build request datastructure structured including a data field for identifying an encounter type;

compare, via the any of at least one processer, comparing, by the one or more processors, the encounter type with a value specified in a corresponding data field of a set of available encounter datastructures;

selecting, by the one or more processors, an anchor encounter datastructure, in which the value specified in the corresponding data field of the anchor encounter datastructure matches the encounter type;

determining, by the one or more processors, analysis window rules associated with the encounter type, the analysis window rules specifying at least one of: a pre-window time period, a post-window time period, a time period length;

determining, by the one or more processors, an analysis window for the anchor encounter datastructure using the analysis window rules and a service date value specified in a corresponding data field of the anchor encounter datastructure;

determining, by the one or more processors, an enrollee identifier value specified in a corresponding data field of the anchor encounter datastructure;

determining, by the one or more processors, a set of other encounter datastructures for the anchor encounter datastructure, in which a service date value specified in a corresponding data field of each other encounter datastructure is in the analysis window for the anchor encounter datastructure, and in which the determined enrollee identifier value matches an enrollee identifier value specified in a corresponding data field of each other encounter datastructure;

determining, by the one or more processors, a props ratio relevance function associated with the encounter type, the props ratio relevance function structured classifying claim codes as either relevant or irrelevant to the encounter type;

determining, by the one or more processors, an encounter relevance classification for each other encounter datastructure in the set of other encounter datastructures using the props ratio relevance function;

determining, by the one or more processors, a set of accessory encounter datastructures for the anchor encounter datastructure, the set of accessory encounter datastructures corresponding to other encounter datastructures for the anchor encounter datastructure classified as relevant based on the encounter relevance classification; and

generating, by the one or more processors, an episode datastructure structured including a set of data fields for identifying: the anchor encounter datastructure, the set of accessory encounter datastructures, and the encounter type.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Jun 18, 2024
From: DICKEY, DAVID; CHIV, HENNING; CHOCK, MATTHEW; EIDEN, GLEN; FAST, TREVOR; WAGONER, SHAWN; WIANDT, MATTHEW; ZEASKE, JESSICA; THYGESON, NELS MARCUS; HASTINGS, CHARLEY; HAUPT, JASON; PETERSON, MARK; PETERSON, MAXWELL L.; KOWITT, BENJAMIN; KLUN, THOMAS ANTON
To: BIND BENEFITS, INC.
Reel/Frame 067750/0833 →
Continuity (15)
Continuation In Part 16659444 · Oct 21, 2019
Continuation In Part 16659438 · Oct 21, 2019
Continuation In Part 16659429 · Oct 21, 2019
Continuation In Part 15632052 · Jun 23, 2017
Continuation In Part 15631961 · Jun 23, 2017
Provisional Application 63220991 · Jul 12, 2021
Provisional Application 63220993 · Jul 12, 2021
Provisional Application 63220988 · Jul 12, 2021
Provisional Application 63220992 · Jul 12, 2021
Provisional Application 63220986 · Jul 12, 2021
Provisional Application 62807711 · Feb 19, 2019
Provisional Application 62748518 · Oct 21, 2018
Provisional Application 62524188 · Jun 23, 2017
Provisional Application 62510215 · May 23, 2017
Provisional Application 62446810 · Jan 16, 2017
References Cited (326)
US 5301105A · Cummings · 1994 [cited by applicant]
US 5523942A · Tyler · 1996 [cited by applicant]
US 5855005A · Schuler et al. · 1998 [cited by applicant]
US 6061657A · Whiting-O'Keefe · 2000 [cited by applicant]
US 6078890A · Mangin et al. · 2000 [cited by applicant]
US 6266645B1 · Simpson · 2001 [cited by applicant]
US 6370511B1 · Dang · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 6381576B1 · Gilbert · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 6735569B1 · Wizig · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 7392201B1 · Binns · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 7493264B1 · Kelly · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 7617115B2 · McNair · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 7702522B1 · Sholem · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7702527B1 · Kron · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7711577B2 · Dust · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7805318B1 · Kuhn · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7979290B2 · Dang · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 8005687B1 · Pederson · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 8041636B1 · Hunter · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 8050937B1 · Henderson · 2011 [cited by examiner]
US 8121869B2 · Dang · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8126727B2 · Peterson · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8321372B1 · Rakshit et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8352286B1 · Bawa · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 8388348B2 · Biltz · 2013 [cited by examiner]
US 8412537B1 · Fenton · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 8670996B1 · Weiss · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 8868436B2 · Gotthardt · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 9679028B1 · Sanghvi et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 9881129B1 · Cave · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 10049772B1 · Price, Jr. · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 10460411B2 · Liu · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10521864B1 · Davis · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 11107582B2 · Nicolaas · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11244416B2 · Cave et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11270800B1 · Mitidis et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11373739B2 · Ozeran · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11640857B2 · Valuck et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 11663670B1 · Miller et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 11705226B2 · Colley et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 11790454B1 · Miller et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 11967431B1 · Toensing · 2024 [cited by examiner]
US 12020816B2 · Srinivasan et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 12094582B1 · Goyal et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 12131397B2 · Cave et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 20010034619A1 · Sherman · 2001 [cited by applicant]
US 20020065758A1 · Henley · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 20020087358A1 · Gilbert · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 20020111826A1 · Potter et al. · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 20020165738A1 · Dang · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 20020173987A1 · Dang · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 20020173989A1 · Dang · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 20020173992A1 · Dang · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 20020178030A1 · Loeb · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 20030195838A1 · Henley · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 20030204421A1 · Houle · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 20040010426A1 · Berdou · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20040111363A1 · Trench · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20040122704A1 · Sabol et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20040122787A1 · Avinash et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20040143464A1 · Houle · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20040193456A1 · Kellington · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20050010446A1 · Lash et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050020903A1 · Krishnan et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050049497A1 · Krishnan et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050055251A1 · Ashley · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050137932A1 · D'Angelo et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050182659A1 · Huttin · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050256745A1 · Dalton · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20060089862A1 · Anandarao · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060200407A1 · Hartley · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20070021986A1 · Cheung · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070021988A1 · Dang · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070118399A1 · Avinash et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070156455A1 · Tarino · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070162308A1 · Peters · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070238065A1 · Sherwood et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070271119A1 · Boeger · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070276704A1 · Naumann · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20080010097A1 · Williams et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080033756A1 · Peterson · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080103991A1 · Moore et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080109263A1 · Clark · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080120143A1 · Beauregard · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080154648A1 · Babyak et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080154759A1 · Babyak et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080183504A1 · Highley · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080201172A1 · McNamar · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080208640A1 · Thomas · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080243547A1 · Brett · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080275737A1 · Gentry · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080288286A1 · Noreen · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080306952A1 · Lynn et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20090076841A1 · Baker · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090112632A1 · Belliveau · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090125348A1 · Rastogi · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090248481A1 · Dick · 2009 [cited by examiner]
US 20100030579A1 · Dhauvan · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100088112A1 · Krasny · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100131284A1 · Duffy · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100235295A1 · Zides et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100241449A1 · Firminger · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100268057A1 · Firminger et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100268108A1 · Firminger · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100274577A1 · Firminger · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100274578A1 · Firminger · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100293002A1 · Firminger · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100305962A1 · Firminger · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20110010190A1 · Falchuk et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110035231A1 · Firminger · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110046985A1 · Raheman · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110082712A1 · Eberhardt, III · 2011 [cited by examiner]
US 20110125520A1 · Dhoble · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110153369A1 · Feldman · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110161117A1 · Busque · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110161118A1 · Borden · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110166895A1 · Kron · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110225114A1 · Gotthardt · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110282690A1 · Patel · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110288879A1 · Gice · 2011 [cited by examiner]
US 20110301977A1 · Belcher et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20120010898A1 · Dust et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120035975A1 · Sugimoto · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120047105A1 · Saigal · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120066662A1 · Chao · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120129139A1 · Partovi · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120239560A1 · Pourfallah · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120259654A1 · Vanderzee · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120284058A1 · Varanasi · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120310679A1 · Olson · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120330690A1 · Goslinga · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130006672A1 · Dang · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130007761A1 · O'Sullivan et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130030828A1 · Pourfallah et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130035956A1 · Carmeli · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130090948A1 · Upadhyayula et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130124217A1 · Thesman · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130166317A1 · Beardall · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130185231A1 · Baras · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130191157A1 · Eiden · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130246086A1 · Mun et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140006066A1 · Watts · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140052470A1 · Ashford · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140058738A1 · Yeskel · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140074518A1 · Ilgenfritz · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140114674A1 · Krughoff et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140136241A1 · Rakshit et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140142964A1 · Lang · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140172470A1 · Watts · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140180714A1 · Mun · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140180949A1 · Ramasamy · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140249851A1 · Christodouleas · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140297297A1 · Head · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140304009A1 · Saxon · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140372150A1 · Karle · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20150006192A1 · Sudharsan et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150006206A1 · Mdeway · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150073943A1 · Norris · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150088541A1 · Yao · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150161622A1 · Hoffmann · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150199493A1 · Glenn · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150254754A1 · Lang et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150339602A1 · Schlosser · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150356685A1 · Lindbberg · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20160042135A1 · Hogan · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160071432A1 · Kurowski et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160092641A1 · Delaney · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160125362A1 · Dziuba · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160140295A1 · Powell · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160196398A1 · Vivero et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160246941A1 · Miller · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160292367A1 · Thorpe · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160292371A1 · Alhimiri · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160321316A1 · Pennefather et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160321412A1 · Basri · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160350495A1 · Pecora · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160358295A1 · Heffley · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160371447A1 · Koman · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20160378932A1 · Sperling · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20170070523A1 · Bailey et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170140393A1 · Katz-Rogozhnikov · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170169173A1 · Snow et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170193173A1 · Miller · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170235900A1 · Messina et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170262604A1 · Francois · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170339184A1 · Bailey et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180047120A1 · Mathis · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180121614A1 · Connely et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180121843A1 · Connely et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180157799A1 · Ketterer et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180166157A1 · Firminger · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180182475A1 · Cossler et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180197636A1 · Firminger · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180218456A1 · Kolb et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180260905A1 · Andreae · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180301222A1 · Dew · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190102670A1 · Ceulemans et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20200077892A1 · Tran · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200118691A1 · Kiljanek · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200185074A1 · Czerska · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200185100A1 · Francois · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200251204A1 · Teodoro · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200303069A1 · Mulligan et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200335188A1 · Ozeran · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20210043310A1 · Valuck · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210056639A1 · Eberting · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210090694A1 · Colley · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210118577A1 · Bettencourt-Silva et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210174963A1 · Hill · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210201417A1 · Neumann · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210304881A1 · White · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20210407672A1 · Zumbrun · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210407682A1 · Crossen · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20220254466A1 · Hwang et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220277840A1 · Lester et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220319652A1 · Ozeran · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20230103143A1 · Srinivasan et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20230133829A1 · Kumar et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20230196471A1 · Mendell et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20230268070A1 · Nienstedt et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20240242802A1 · Yazdavar et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
CA 2419105C · 2007 [cited by applicant]
CA 2369425C · 2012 [cited by applicant]
CA 3034235A1 · 2018 [cited by applicant]
CA 3076349A1 · 2018 [cited by examiner]
CA 2997585C · 2021 [cited by applicant]
CN 1748217A · 2006 [cited by applicant]
CN 1748218A · 2006 [cited by applicant]
CN 1914617A · 2007 [cited by applicant]
CN 104857422B · 2018 [cited by applicant]
CN 110675956A · 2020 [cited by applicant]
CN 115482921A · 2022 [cited by applicant]
WO 9701141A1 · 1997 [cited by applicant]
WO 0060431A1 · 2000 [cited by applicant]
WO 0133484A2 · 2001 [cited by applicant]
WO 2011123823 · 2011 [cited by applicant]
WO 2013052733A1 · 2013 [cited by applicant]
WO 2014130392 · 2014 [cited by applicant]
WO 2015054794A1 · 2015 [cited by applicant]
WO 2015191562 · 2015 [cited by applicant]
WO 2018034913A1 · 2018 [cited by applicant]
Karen Davis, Marilyn Moon, Barbara Cooper and Cathy Schoen. “Medicare Extra: A Comprehensive Benefit Option For Medicare Beneficiaries”. Health Affairs, (2005). doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.w5.442. http://content.healthaffairs.… [cited by applicant]
Adam Atherly. “The Effect of Medicare Supplemental Insurance on Medicare Expenditures”. International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics, 2, 137-162, 2002. (Year: 2002). [cited by applicant]
Mark V. Pauly, Patricia Danzon, Paul Feldstein, and John Hoff. “A Plan for ‘Responsible National Health Insurance’” Health Affairs, pp. 5-25, Spring (1991). (Year: 1991). [cited by applicant]
Susan L. Ettner. “Adverse selection and the purchase of Medigap insurance by the elderly”. Journal of Health Economics. vol. 16, Issue 5, Oct. 1997, pp. 543-562. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(97)00011-8 (Year: 1997… [cited by applicant]
John H. Goddeeris and Andrew J. Hogan. “Improving Access to Health Care: What Can the States Do?” W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. (1992). ISBN 0-88099-117-8. (Year: 1992). [cited by applicant]
Dictionary.com. Definition of “Condition”. Collins English Dictionary—Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition. Downloaded on Aug. 3, 2019. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/condition (Year: 2012). [cited by applicant]
D. C. Stahl, L. Rouse, D. Ko and J. C. Niland, “GDSI: a Web-based decision support system to facilitate the efficient and effective use of clinical practice guidelines,” Proc. of 37th Annual Hawaii Int'l Conf, on System… [cited by applicant]
V. Tresp, J. Marc Overhage, M. Bundschus, S. Rabizadeh, P. A. Fasching and S. Yu, “Going Digital: A Survey on Digitalization and Large-Scale Data Analytics in Healthcare,” in Proc. of the IEEE, vol. 104, No. 11, pp. 218… [cited by applicant]
Ongenae, Femke et al. “Towards computerizing intensive care sedation guidelines: design of a rule-based architecture for automated execution of clinical guidelines.” BMC medical informatics and decision making vol. 10 3… [cited by applicant]
Ling et al. “Decision trees with minimal costs”. ICML '04: Proceedings of the twenty-first international conference on Machine learning. Jul. 2004 https://doi.org/10.1145/1015330.1015369 (Year: 2004). [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 15/631,961. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 15/632,052. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,429. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,438. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,444. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 17/862,333. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 17/862,351. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 17/862,368. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 17/862,385. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 17/862,392. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 62/446,810. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 62/510,215. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 62/524,188. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 62/748,518. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 62/807,711. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 63/220,986. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 63/220,988. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 63/220,991. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 63/220,992. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 63/220,993. [cited by applicant]
Desarkar et al. “Med-Tree: A User Knowledge Graph Framework for Medical Applications”. 13th IEEE International Conference on BioInformatics and BioEngineering. Nov. 10-13, 2013. DOI: 10.1109/BIBE.2013.6701564 (Year:2013… [cited by applicant]
Dewilde et al. “Modified Rankin scale as a determinant of direct medical costs after stroke”. International Journal of Stroke, 2017, vol. 12(4) 392-400. DOI: 10.1177/1747493017691984 journals.sagepub.com/home/wso (Year:… [cited by applicant]
Dictionary.com. Definition of “Atomize”. Collins English Dictionary—Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition. Downloaded on Aug. 3, 2019. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atomize (Year: 2012). [cited by applicant]
Final Rejection Mailed on Apr. 4, 2022 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,438, 25 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Final Rejection Mailed on Apr. 5, 2023 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/632,052, 22 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Final Rejection Mailed on Apr. 10, 2020 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/632,052, 19 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Final Rejection Mailed on Aug. 20, 2024 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/632,052, 24 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Final Rejection Mailed on Aug. 22, 2024 for U.S. Appl. No. 17/862,392, 10 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Final Rejection Mailed on Feb. 1, 2021 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,444, 27 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Final Rejection Mailed on Jan. 4, 2022 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/631,961, 12 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Final Rejection Mailed on May 20, 2020 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/631,961, 21 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Final Rejection Mailed on Nov. 17, 2021 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/632,052, 22 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Final Rejection Mailed on Oct. 19, 2022 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,444, 26 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Final Rejection Mailed on Sep. 7, 2023 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,438, 21 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Geamsakul et al. “Analysis of Hepatitis Dataset by Decision Tree Based on Graph-Based Induction”. Annual Conference of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence. JSAI 2004: New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligenc… [cited by applicant]
Geamsakul et al. “Constructing a Decision Tree for Graph-Structured Data and its Applications”. Fundamenta Informaticae 66 (2005) 131-160 131. IOS Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234785949_Constructing_a… [cited by applicant]
Google Patents English Language Translation of CN 104857422 B. https://patents.google.com/patent/CN104857422B/en?oq=CN+104857422+B (Year: 2024). [cited by applicant]
Google Patents English Language Translation of CN 110675956 A. https://patents.google.com/patent/CN110675956A/en?oq=CN+110675956+A (Year: 2024). [cited by applicant]
Google Patents English language translation of CN-1748217-A. https://patents.google.com/patent/CN1748217A/en?oq=CN-1748217-A (Year: 2024). [cited by applicant]
Google Patents English language translation of CN-1748218-A. https://patents.google.com/patent/CN1748218A/en?oq=CN-1748218-A (Year: 2024). [cited by applicant]
Google Patents English language translation of CN-1914617-A. https://patents.google.com/patent/CN1914617A/en?oq=CN-1914617-A (Year: 2024). [cited by applicant]
Hazen et al. “Stochastic-Tree Models in Medical Decision Making”. Interfaces 28: Jul. 4-Aug. 1998 (pp. 64-80). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228391060_Stochastic-Tree_Models_in_Medical_Decision_Making (Year: … [cited by applicant]
Mar et al. “Outcomes measured by mortality rates, quality of life and degree of autonomy in the first year in stroke units in Spain”. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (2015) 13:36 DOI 10.1186/s 12955-015-0230-8 (Year… [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Rejection Mailed on Aug. 2, 2021 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,429, 21 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Rejection Mailed on Aug. 7, 2019 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/632,052, 24 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Rejection Mailed on Aug. 22, 2022 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/632,052, 20 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Rejection Mailed on Aug. 27, 2024 for U.S. Appl. No. 17/862,351, 18 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Rejection Mailed on Feb. 10, 2021 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/632,052, 20 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Rejection Mailed on Feb. 29, 2024 for U.S. Appl. No. 17/862,368, 11 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Rejection Mailed on Feb. 29, 2024 for U.S. Appl. No. 17/862,385, 10 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Rejection Mailed on Jan. 16, 2024 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,444, 29 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Rejection Mailed on Jan. 24, 2023 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,438, 22 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Rejection Mailed on Jul. 30, 2024 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,438, 25 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Rejection Mailed on Jun. 2, 2020 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,444, 24 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Rejection Mailed on Jun. 8, 2023 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,444, 29 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Rejection Mailed on Jun. 21, 2021 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,438, 22 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Rejection Mailed on Mar. 3, 2022 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,444, 27 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Rejection Mailed on Mar. 18, 2021 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/631,961, 27 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Rejection Mailed on Nov. 2, 2023 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/632,052, 23 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Rejection Mailed on Nov. 8, 2023 for U.S. Appl. No. 17/862,351, 17 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Rejection Mailed on Oct. 6, 2023 for U.S. Appl. No. 17/862,392, 15 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Rejection Mailed on Sep. 3, 2019 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/631,961, 19 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (PTOL-85) Mailed on Dec. 2, 2022 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/631,961, 9 page (s). [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (PTOL-85) Mailed on Feb. 1, 2023 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,429, 14 page (s). [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (PTOL-85) Mailed on Jun. 7, 2022 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,429, 14 page (s). [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (PTOL-85) Mailed on Jun. 23, 2022 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,429, 10 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Peter Diamond. “Organizing the Health Insurance Market”. Econometrica, vol. 60, No. 6. (Nov. 1992), pp. 1233-1254. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0012-9682%28199211%2960%3A6%3C1233%3AOTHIM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5 (Year: 1992). [cited by applicant]
Szolovits. “Uncertainty and Decisions in Medical Informatics”. Article in Methods of Information in Medicine. Jan. 2001. DOI: 10.1055/S-0038-1634594 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2453682 (Year: 2001). [cited by applicant]
Final Rejection Mailed on Sep. 9, 2024 for U.S. Appl. No. 17/862,385, 11 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Final Rejection Mailed on Sep. 10, 2024 for U.S. Appl. No. 17/862,368, 10 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Google Patents English language translation of CN-115482921-A. https://patents.google.com/patent/CN115482921A/en?oq=CN+115482921+A (Year: 2024). [cited by applicant]
Final Rejection Mailed on Oct. 21, 2024 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,444, 24 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Advisory Action (PTOL-303) Mailed on Jan. 8, 2025 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,444, 2 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Final Rejection Mailed on Jan. 13, 2025 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/659,438, 8 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Final Rejection Mailed on Jan. 15, 2025 for U.S. Appl. No. 17/862,351, 11 page(s). [cited by applicant]
Cited By (1)
US 12,717,981