Service-related expenses for providers, particularly in the healthcare industry, are rising every year. To provide these services to individuals at a competitive rate and avoid passing along the rising costs (e.g., in a form of higher insurance deductibles), service providers often strive to increase collection efforts. For example, the service providers may work to develop strategies for collecting balances owed by individuals in view of the limited resources of the service providers to ultimately maximize returns.
However, predicting whether or not an individual is going to pay and how much they will pay is dependent on a large number of variables, particularly in the healthcare context where insurance is also involved. Due to complexity created by the large number of variables, accurate and timely predictions may be difficult to obtain using conventional techniques. Moreover, due to the highly specific nature of collections strategies from service provider to service provider, collection efforts cannot be directly compared across service providers.
A system, method and computer readable storage device for automatic data segmentation are described herein. An example automatic data segmentation system may provide a service provider, hereinafter referred to as a client, an easily consumable segment assignment for an individual owing a balance, where the segment assignment informs the collection strategy to be used for the individual to optimize collections efforts. The segment assignment may be based on a predicted recovery value for the individual and client-provided segmentation boundaries defining a range of recovery values for each segment. The recovery value may be predicted by processing at least accounts receivable data, payment history data, and credit related data of the individual using a client-specific, hyper-dimensional model trained with historical data of individuals serviced by the client.
Additionally, by utilizing recovery values for individuals, direct comparisons of collection efforts may be made across clients nationally and/or demographically, among other examples. Clients may use these comparisons to determine adjustments or improvements that can be made to their collection strategies for particular segments, for example, which may further aid in optimizing collections efforts.
In one example aspect, automatic data segmentation may be provided as a service to health care clients, where the data segmentation system may be communicatively coupled to various systems of the healthcare clients, such as health information systems, to facilitate communication of information between the systems. In another example aspect, automatic data segmentation may be provided as a service to other service providers that are required to collect payments from individuals after rendering services to the individuals, among other examples.
This summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts; it is not intended to identify all features or limit the scope of the claimed subject matter.
The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and constitute a part of this disclosure, illustrate various aspects and examples of the present invention:
The following detailed description refers to the accompanying drawings. Wherever possible, the same reference numbers are used in the drawings and the following description to refer to the same or similar elements. While aspects of the present disclosure may be described, modifications, adaptations, and other implementations are possible. For example, substitutions, additions, or modifications can be made to the elements illustrated in the drawings, and the methods described herein can be modified by substituting, reordering, subtracting, and/or adding operations to the disclosed methods. Accordingly, the following detailed description does not limit the present disclosure, but instead, the proper scope of the present disclosure is defined by the appended claims. The following detailed description is, therefore, not to be taken in a limiting sense.
The client system 106 may be a data source comprising information about individuals serviced by the client, including accounts receivable data 108, among other information. For example, when an individual receives services from the client, the client system 106 may create profiles for the clients and add invoices for the services to the client profiles, where the generated invoices may comprise accounts receivable data 108. The accounts receivable data 108 for each individual may include a total cost for the service(s) rendered, a cost responsibility of a guarantor if any (e.g., cost to be paid by insurance), a cost responsibility of the individual, an amount currently owed by the individual (e.g., a balance), an amount of payments made toward the cost, and other similar information. In example aspects, the client system 106 periodically provides the accounts receivable data 108 to the data segmentation system 102. For example, the client system 106 may provide accounts receivable data 108 every quarter of a year. The time period for providing the accounts receivable data 108 may be dynamically configurable by the data segmentation system 102 or the client.
The accounts receivable data 108 may be stored in an accounts receivable database 110. In some aspects, before being stored in the accounts receivable database 110, the accounts receivable data 108 may be processed to comply with a format of the accounts receivable database 110. The accounts receivable data 108 for an individual may be one type of data received as input data 120 for processing at the data segmentation system 102.
Payment history data 112 for the individual may be another type of data received as input data 120 for processing at the data segmentation system 102. In example aspects, payment history data 112 may be created from the accounts receivable data 108 for the respective individual and stored in the payment history database 114. In some examples, the payment history data 112 may be created by the data segmentation system 102. In other examples, the payment history data 112 may be created by the client system 106. The payment history data 112 may include invoices created for the individual over a predetermined time period, payments received from the individual for the created invoices, a time gap between the creation of the invoices and receipt of the payments, unpaid invoices, and delays associated with the unpaid invoices, among other similar information. The payment history data 112 may reveal whether the individual has ever paid the client, if there are patterns of the individual being in debt, etc.
In addition to the accounts receivable data 108 and the payment history data 112, credit related data 116 of the individual may be a further type of data received as input data 120 for processing at the data segmentation system 102. The credit related data 116 may be received from a credit statistics database 118, and include credit scores or credit report data. The credit data may obtained from a third party data source such as a credit rating entity or a credit bureau and stored in the credit statistics database 118. In some aspects, the credit score may be a healthcare-specific credit score. Additionally, other attributes including a service type (e.g., an emergency visit, an inpatient visit, or an outpatient visit) may be received as input data 120 for processing at the data segmentation system 102.
In some aspects, one or more of the accounts receivable database 110, the payment history database 114, and the credit statistics database 118 may be databases associated with the client system 106. In other aspects, one or more of the accounts receivable database 110, the payment history database 114, and the credit statistics database 118 may be databases associated with the data segmentation system 102. In further aspects, one or more of the accounts receivable database 110, the payment history database 114, and the credit statistics database 118 may be databases associated with a third party service, such as an online storage service, communicatively coupled to the data segmentation system 102 and the client system 106 over the network 132.
Once the input data 120 for the individual is received at the data segmentation system 102, the input data 120 may be processed using a model, and a segment 122 for the individual may be provided as output. For example, as described in detail in
The segment 122 provided as output may be an easily consumable value (e.g., segment 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or segment A, B, C, D, E) that informs a collection strategy for individuals falling within the segment in order to optimize collection efforts. The segment 122 may be determined based on the predicted recovery value and segment boundary definitions provided by the client system 106. For example, the boundary definitions define a range of recovery values for each segment. Therefore, the segment 122 determined may be the segment 122 comprising the range of recovery values in which the predicted recovery value falls. In some aspects, the client system 106 may determine the segment boundary definitions to provide based on resources of the client (e.g., a number of staff, hours, and other resources that may be dedicated to collection efforts). For example, if the client has adequate staff to work 10% of all the clients, the segmentation may be allocated accordingly.
The segment 122 for the individual may be provided to the client system 106. In some examples, the segment 122 may be provided along with the amount owed by the individual in a flat file. The client system 106 may determine a corresponding collection strategy 124 based on the segment 122 assigned to the individual. The collection strategies may vary in timing (e.g., a day/time of day or a frequency at which to contact the client) and a level of interaction (e.g., phone, email, letter, no communication). To provide an example, one segment may be defined by a range of recovery values indicating individuals falling within the segment are not likely to pay at all, or if so only a minimal amount. Therefore, to avoid wasting any time or resources on sending letters to and/or calling that individual, the collection strategy for the individual may be to write off the unpaid costs and/or get a charitable organization involved to help with the payment. To provide another example, another segment may be defined by a range of recovery values indicating individuals falling within the other segment are likely to pay but have a low balance (e.g., because they are insured and the insurance provider is paying for a large portion of the total cost). Accordingly, the collection strategy for the individual may be to write to the individual or call the individual at least once to prompt payment because the individual is likely to pay, but not to waste too many resources by repetitively contacting the individual as the amount that will be collected is low.
Optionally, in some aspects, the data segmentation system 102 may automatically determine the collection strategy 124 based on the segment 122 and provide both the segment 122 and the collection strategy 124 to the client system 106. In one example, the data segmentation system 102 may receive data from the client system 106 associated with each strategy and the one or more segments the strategy is applicable to. In another example, the data segmentation system 102 may independently suggest the collection strategy 124, where the collection strategy can be suggested based on various factors, such as certain business rules (that is, charity rules, write-off rules), staff size, and whether the client has an auto dialer system versus manual dialing, among other similar factors.
To provide an example scenario, a woman may have an emergency delivery of her baby performed at a local hospital. The total cost of the emergency procedure may be $30,000. However, the woman may have insurance, and only be responsible for $2,000 of that total cost. Therefore, the $2,000 (e.g., one variable of the accounts receivable data 108) may be input to the model along with other data associated with the woman, such as her credit score of 750 (e.g., one variable of the credit related data 116) and no outstanding balances revealed by her past payment history (e.g., one variable of the payment history data 112). Based on this input, the model may yield a predicted unit yield of $1,800 and a predicted recovery rate of 80%, where the predicted recovery value may be a weighted average of the unit yield and recovery rate. The predicted recovery value may fall within the range of recovery values corresponding to segment two based on the segment boundaries provided by the local hospital. Therefore, the data segmentation system 102 may provide the segment two to the local hospital along with the $2000 amount owed as output. The local hospital may then utilize the segment two assignment to determine a collections strategy for collecting the $2,000 from the woman. For example, in this example, segment two may indicate a good likelihood that the client will pay a majority of the remaining costs due. Therefore, the local hospital may devote resources to having staff follow up with phone calls or letters to the woman.
As another example, if the payment history data 112 of the woman in the previous example revealed three previous accounts totaling to $1,500.00 and two of them are in bad debt, the woman may be instead assigned to a segment four. For example, based on this input, the model may yield a predicted unit yield of $800 and a predicted recovery rate of 33%, where the predicted recovery value may be a weighted average of the unit yield and recovery rate. The predicted recovery value may fall within the range of recovery values corresponding to segment four based on the segment boundaries. Adjustment of the classification to segment four may indicate that even though the woman has a good credit score and insurance, etc., the woman is less likely to make payments to the hospital than if the woman had no previous outstanding balances. Hence, as illustrated by these examples, the input data 120 for the individual includes a plurality of variables influencing the recovery value, and a change in one or more of the variables may drastically shift the segment assigned for the individual.
In further example aspects, recovery values 128 for individuals serviced by the client (as well as a plurality of other clients) may be provided from the data segmentation system 102 to the comparison system 104. The recovery values 128 may serve as a standard metric for comparison across the plurality of clients to reveal how collection efforts of one client are comparing to other clients as a whole. For example, the recovery values 128 for each of the plurality of clients may be aggregated and averaged for comparison to the average recovery values for the client to produce comparison results 130.
Additionally, to make the comparison results 130 more meaningful to the client, the comparison results 130 may be returned according to the client's segments. For example, the client's segmentation boundaries may be provided to the comparison system 104 and applied to the aggregated recovery values from the plurality of clients to determine the average recovery value for each of the client's segments across the plurality of clients. This enables direct comparison to the average recovery values of the client for each segment. Therefore, the client is enabled to see in which particular segments the client is over performing or underperforming compared to other clients and may adjust resources accordingly. In some examples, the comparison may be across an entirety of clients, where in some aspects, the entirety of clients may be located within a defined geographical area (e.g., nation, state, city, county, etc.). In other examples, the comparison may be across a subset of clients having similar demographics to provide an “apples to apples” comparison.
The training engine 202 may use historical data 208 received from the client system 106 to produce training data 206. In example aspects, the historical data 208 may correspond to a predetermined time period. For example, the historical data 208 may include data for individuals who received services from the client in the previous six months. The historical data 208 may include input data and an actual recovery value for each of those individuals. Accordingly, the modeling of the training data 206 may reveal relationships between the input data and the actual recovery value.
The input data provided as part of the historical data 208 may be similar to the input data 120, including accounts receivable data 108, payment history data 112, and credit related data 116 for each of the individuals serviced by the client in the past. The actual recovery value provided as part of the historical data 208 may include an actual unit yield and an actual recovery rate based on the amount the individual actually paid toward the cost of the service. For example, the actual unit yield may be the actual monetary amount received from the individual. The actual recovery rate may be the ratio of the monetary amount received from the individual to a total monetary amount due for the service. For example, if a client was responsible for $10,000 worth of service, and paid $8,000 of the total, the actual unit yield may be $8,000 and the actual recovery rate may be 80% or 0.8.
The model 204 may be built based on the training data 206. An example of the model is illustrated in
Regression analysis may be performed on the data within the model 204 to estimate relationships among the variables, such as the various types of input data and the actual recovery value. For example, the actual recovery value may be a dependent variable of interest, where the various types of input data may be independent variables influencing the actual recovery value. As a result of the regression analysis, a formula may be generated that represents the estimated relationship between the various types of input data and the actual recovery value. For example, if a value for each of the various types of input data are plugged into the formula, the recovery value (e.g., the weighted average of the unit yield and the recovery rate) may be computed as output.
Once the model 204 has been trained, the model 204 may then be implemented at operation 210 to determine a predicted recovery value 216 for a new individual (e.g., an individual who recently received a service) by leveraging the estimated relationship determined by the regression analysis. For example, the input data 120 for the new individual may be fed into the model 204 (e.g., the generated formula) to predict a unit yield at operation 212 and predict a recovery rate at operation 214. The predicted unit yield may be the total monetary amount predicted to be received from the individual and the predicted recovery rate may be the predicted percentage of the total amount that the individual will pay. A weighted average of the predicted unit yield and the predicted recovery rate may then yield the predicted recovery value 216 for the individual.
The individual may then be assigned a segment 122 at operation 218. For example, the segment 122 for the individual may be assigned based on the predicted recovery value 216 determined at operation 210 and segment boundary definitions 220 received from the client system 106. The segment boundary definitions 220 may include boundaries for a plurality of segments. For example, each segment may comprise a range of recovery values. Therefore, the segment 122 assigned may be the segment 122 having a range of recovery values within which the predicted recovery value 216 falls.
In some aspects, the segment 122 may then be provided to the client system 106 for use in determining a collection strategy. Optionally, in some aspects, the data segmentation system 102 may automatically determine the collection strategy 124 based on the segment 122 and provide both the segment 122 and the collection strategy 124 to the client system 106. As one example, the data segmentation system 102 may receive data from the client system 106 associated with each strategy and the one or more segments the strategy is applicable to. As another example, the data segmentation system 102 may independently suggest the collection strategy 124, where the collection strategy can be suggested based on various factors, such as certain business rules (that is, charity rules, write-off rules), staff size, and whether the client has an auto dialer system versus manual dialing, among other similar factors.
The model 204 may be continuously updated over time. For example, once an actual recovery value 222 is determined for the new individual, the actual recovery value 222 may be provided along with the input data 120 of the new individual to the training engine 202 to update the training data 206 and subsequently the model 204. The model 204 may be updated by using the actual recovery value 222 as either learning data or as validation data. For example, the model 204 may be patched based on the actual recovery value 222. Patching of the model 204 may include updating weights assigned to one or more variables or adding or removing one or more variables from the model 204. In some aspects, the model 204 is updated multiple times until an acceptable error rate for the model 204 is achieved.
In addition to updating the model 204, the segment boundary definitions 220 of the client may be updated as well. For example, one or more boundaries associated with one or more segments of the model 204 may be adjusted based on the actual recovery value 222.
Additionally, segment boundary definitions 220 may be received from the client and applied to the data within the model 204. The segment boundary definitions 220 may define a plurality of segments based on recovery values. For example, each segment may correspond to a range of recovery values. Accordingly, each data point may be illustrated by a different symbol type based on the segment into which a corresponding individual is classified or assigned. The segment may inform one or more collections strategies applied to the individuals assigned to the segment.
To provide an example, a first set of data points 302, illustrated as stars in
As another example, a second set of data points 304, illustrated as triangles in
The various other sets of data points illustrated as circles, squares, and crosses that fall in between the first set of data points 302 and the second set of data points 304 in
As illustrated in
The data segmentation system 102 may build a plurality of models similar to model 204, where each of the plurality of models is specific to a particular client. For example, the data segmentation system 102 may build models specific to each of a plurality of clients 402A, 402B, 402C, and 402N, collectively clients 402, as described in detail in conjunction with
Demographic data 406 for each of the clients 402 may be provided by the respective clients 402 to the comparison system 104. Examples of the demographic data 406 provided may include a type of the client (e.g., a hospital, a health clinic, a diagnostic center, a doctor's office, etc.), a location of the client (e.g., inner city, suburban, rural), and an average level of income of individuals receiving service from the client (e.g., upper class, middle class, lower class), among other demographic data. For example, Client A 402A may a hospital located in a rural area servicing individuals with a low to middle median income, Client B 402B may be a small health clinic located in the inner city that works largely off of charity, and Client C 402C may be a hospital located in a suburb servicing individuals with a high median income.
Upon receipt of a request for a comparison from a given client (e.g., a requesting client), the comparison system 104 may aggregate recovery values for one or more of the clients 402 at operation 408. The recovery values may be aggregated based on a type of comparison requested. As one example, the request may be for a comparison across an entirety of the clients 402. Therefore, recovery values for the entirety of the clients may be aggregated. In some aspects, the entirety of the clients 402 may be spread over a particular geographical area, such as a nation, and thus the comparison yielded may be a national comparison (e.g., national comparison 414). As another example, the request may be for a comparison across a subset of the clients 402 that are demographically similar to the requesting client (e.g., demographic comparisons 416). For example, if the requesting client is Client A 402A, the hospital located in the rural area servicing individuals with a low to middle median income, it may be more insightful for Client A 204A to compare its collections efforts to those of other similar rural hospitals, rather than inner city or suburban hospitals servicing different types of individuals. The demographic data 406 may be used to aid in determinations of demographically similar clients. In further examples, the request may be for more than one comparison, where the comparisons are a mix of national and demographic related comparisons.
To make the comparison results more meaningful to the requesting client, at operation 410, segment boundary definitions for the requesting client may be applied to the aggregated recovery values so that the comparison may be performed on a per segment basis corresponding directly to the segments of the requesting client. For example, if the requesting client has five segments defined. The aggregate recovery values may be divided within those five segments as defined by the requesting client.
Then, at operation 412 the comparison may be performed. For example, for each segment, aggregated recovery values falling within the segment may be averaged to produce an average aggregated recovery value across the clients for each segment. Similarly, for each segment, the requesting client's recovery values falling within the segment may be averaged. The average aggregated recovery value across the clients may then be directly compared to the average recovery value of the requesting client on a per segment basis. In some examples, the comparison may further be broken down to a comparison of the average unit yield and the average recovery rate across the clients to the average unit yield and the average recovery rate of the requesting client.
The comparison results 130 may then be provided to the requesting client for use in collections strategies optimization. The comparison results may include one or more of a national comparison 414 (or other similar geographic based comparison, such as state-wide, city-wide, etc.) and demographic comparisons 416 based on a type of comparison requested. The comparison results 130 may be provided in a graphical and/or tabular form as illustrated in
The comparison results 130 may allow the requesting client to directly compare its recovery values in each segment to those same metrics averaged nationally and/or demographically to determine whether they are comparatively collecting successfully, average, or poorly in one or more of the segments. The requesting client may then adjust their collection strategies for each segment accordingly. For example, if the requesting client is Client A 402A, and the comparison results 130 indicate that nationally they are not collecting as successfully from clients falling within segment two, Client A 402A may dedicate more resources to those individual assigned to segment two (e.g., use more aggressive collection strategies such as phone calls and letters) to try to increase amounts collected from individuals within segment two.
For example, a client may request to receive a national comparison. As described in greater detail in
As illustrated, each of the first data set 502 and the second data set 504 may include one or more of a graph and a table to display the respective average recovery values. For example, the graph may have an x-axis representing the segments defined by the requesting client and a y-axis simultaneously representing an average recovery rate and an average unit yield (e.g., the recovery value). Specifically, the graph may include a bar for each segment depicting the average recovery rate for the respective segment, and a marker for each segment depicting the average unit yield for the respective segment, where the marker may be overlaid on the bar. The right hand side of the graph may be labeled along the y-axis according to the dollar amount for the average unit yield, whereas the left hand side of the graph may be labeled along the y-axis according to percentage for average recovery rate.
The table may include rows for each segment of the requesting client and columns indicating a number of records (e.g., a number of individuals within each segment), an average recovery rate, and an average unit yield for each segment. In some examples, the comparison requested may be a benchmark comparison. In such examples, the table may further include columns indicating an average national benchmark score, a median national benchmark score, and a standard deviation for the national benchmark score to allow for additional insight. As can be appreciated, other graphical and textual representations may be utilized to visualize the average recovery value on a per segment basis.
The first data set 502 may be directly compared to the second data set 504 to enable the requesting client to determine how their collection efforts compare on a per segment basis to other clients nationally and within which segments, if any, adjustments to collection strategies need to be made to optimize efforts. As one example, for individuals falling within segment five, the requesting client may have a recovery rate of about 13% and a unit yield of almost $19, whereas nationally clients may have a national recovery rate of almost 17% and the national unit yield of almost $6.50. Based on this comparison, the requesting client may determine that the national recovery rate is higher and thus the requesting client may consider devoting more resources into collecting from individuals assigned to segment five. However, because the national unit yield is lower, even if the requesting client put more resources into collecting from individuals assigned to segment five, the extra resources devoted may not be worth the low monetary reward gained from those individuals. Thus, depending on the comparisons in other segments, those extra resources may instead be allocated elsewhere to maximize return.
As another example, for individuals falling within segment one, the requesting client may have a recovery rate of almost 95% and a unit yield of about $35, whereas nationally clients may have a national recovery rate of almost 89% and a national unit yield of about $28. Based on this comparison, the requesting client may determine they have a better recovery rate and a unit yield than the national recovery rate and the national unit yield, and therefore no additional resources may need to be devoted to individuals assigned to segment one.
At operation 606, a model 204 may be trained based on the historical data 208 (e.g., the historical data 208 may be training data 206). The model 204 may be a hyper-dimensional model, where each variable of the training data 206 is represented by a unique dimension. Therefore, each data point in the model 204 represents an individual from the training data 206 corresponding to respective values of the variables in the hyper-dimensional space. In some examples, spline interpolation methods may be performed in each dimension to smooth the data.
At operation 608, a relationship between the variables of the historical data 208 (e.g., a relationship between the input data and the actual recovery value) may be determined based on the model by performing regression analysis, for example, on the data within the model 204. In some examples, the actual recovery value may be the dependent variable of interest, where the various types of input data may be the independent variables influencing the actual recovery value. As a result of the regression analysis, a formula may be generated to represent the estimated relationship between the variables. For example, if a value for each of the various types of input data are plugged into the formula, the recovery value (e.g., the weighted average of the unit yield and the recovery rate) may be computed as output.
By leveraging the relationships determined by the regression analysis, the model 204 may be applied to predict a recovery value of and assign a segment to a new individual whom the client provided a service at operation 610, as described in greater detail in conjunction with
The method 700 may start at operation 702 and proceed to operation 704, where input data 120 associated with an individual whom a client provided a service may be received. For example, the individual may have recently received a service from a client, and the client may want to determine which collection strategy to apply for the individual to most effectively collect a balance from the individual. In example aspects, the input data 120 includes accounts receivable data 108 (e.g., a total amount owed, a remaining balance owed), payment history data 112 (presence of debts), credit related data 116, and other attributes (e.g., whether the individual has insurance or not, service type (emergency visit, inpatient visit, outpatient visit).
At operation 706, the input data 120 may be processed using a model 204 to predict a recovery value (e.g., predicted recovery value 216) for the individual. The model 204 may be specific to the client. For example, the model 204 may be the model trained at operation 606 and used to determine the relationship between input data and recovery values of historical data 208 of the client at operation 608. In some example aspects, the values of the various types of input data 120 for the individual may be input into the formula generated based on the determined relationship from the model 204, and the predicted recovery value 216 may be provided as output of the formula.
At operation 708, the client may be assigned to a segment 122 based on the predicted recovery value 216 for the client and segment boundary definitions 220 received from the client, where the segment boundary definitions 220 may include a range of recovery values. For example, the segment 122 comprising the range of recovery values into which the predicted recovery value 216 falls may be assigned to the individual.
At operation 710, the segment 122 may be provided to the client. The segment 122 may be utilized by the client to determine a collection strategy for the individual. In some examples, the collection strategy may be determined by the data segmentation system 102 and may be provided, along with the segment 122, to the client. At operation 712 the method 700 ends.
The method 800 may start at operation 802 and proceed to operation 804, where the comparison system 104 may receive and store segmentation data 404 for a plurality of clients 402. The segmentation data 404 may include at least recovery values of individuals serviced and segment boundary definitions for each of the plurality of clients 402. Additionally, the comparison system 104 may receive other types of data, such as demographic data 406 associated with each of the plurality of clients 402.
At operation 806, the comparison system 104 may receive a request to compare collection efforts of a given client (e.g., client A 402A) to collection efforts across one or more of the plurality of clients 402. At operation 808, the recovery values for the one or more the plurality of clients 402 may be aggregated. The clients whose recovery values are aggregated may be based on a type of comparison requested. In one example, the requested comparison may be a national comparison. Therefore, recovery values for all of the clients within the nation may be aggregated. In another example, the requested comparison may be a demographic comparison. Therefore, recovery values for only a subset of clients that possess similar demographic characteristics to the given client (e.g., based on the demographic data 406) may be aggregated.
To allow a direct and meaningful comparison, recovery values across the clients 402 may be normalized based on the segments defined by the given client. For example, at operation 810, segment boundary definitions 220 of the given client may be applied to the aggregated recovery values. For example, the requesting client may have defined five segments, each segment corresponding to a particular range of recovery values. The aggregated recovery values may then be divided into those five segments.
Then, at operation 812, an average aggregated recovery value across the one or more of the plurality of clients 402 may be determined for each segment. For example, all aggregated recovery values falling within a same segment may be averaged together to produce an average aggregated recovery value for the particular segment, which may then be repeated for each segment. At operation 814, an average recovery value of the given client may be determined for each segment. For example, all recovery values for the given client falling within a same segment may be averaged together to produce an average recovery value for the particular segment, which may then be repeated for each segment.
At operation 816, for each segment, the average recovery value for the given client determined at operation 814 may be compared to the average aggregated recovery value across the plurality of clients determined at operation 812. The comparison results 130 may be provided to the given client at operation 818.
The comparison results 130 may be provided in a graphical and/or tabular form as illustrated in
Operating system 906, for example, can be suitable for controlling the operation of computing device 900 and for instantiating a communication session between one or more local or remote systems/devices. Furthermore, aspects may be practiced in conjunction with a graphics library, other operating systems, or any other application program and is not limited to any particular application or system. This basic configuration is illustrated by those components within a dashed line 910. Computing device 900 can also include one or more input device(s) 912 (keyboard, mouse, pen, touch input device, etc.) and one or more output device(s) 914 (e.g., display, speakers, a printer, etc.).
The computing device 900 can also include additional data or memory storage devices (removable or non-removable) such as, for example, magnetic disks, optical disks, caching data structures, tape, etc. Such additional storage is illustrated by a removable storage 916 and a non-removable storage 918. Computing device 900 can also contain a communication connection 920 that can allow computing device 900 to communicate with other computing devices 922, such as over a network in a distributed computing environment, for example, an intranet or the Internet. Communication connection 920 is one example of a communication medium, via which computer-readable transmission media (i.e., signals) may be propagated.
Programming modules can include routines, programs, components, data structures, and other types of structures that can perform particular tasks or that can implement particular abstract data types. Moreover, aspects can be practiced with other computer system configurations, including hand-held devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable client electronics, minicomputers, mainframe computers, and the like. Aspects can also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network. In a distributed computing environment, programming modules can be located in both local and remote memory storage devices.
Furthermore, aspects can be practiced in an electrical circuit comprising discrete electronic elements, packaged or integrated electronic chips containing logic gates, a circuit using a microprocessor, or on a single chip containing electronic elements or microprocessors (e.g., a system-on-a-chip (SoC)). Aspects can also be practiced using other technologies capable of performing logical operations such as, for example, AND, OR, and NOT, including, but not limited to, mechanical, optical, fluidic, and quantum technologies. In addition, aspects can be practiced within a general purpose computer or in other circuits or systems.
Aspects can be implemented as a computer process (method), a computing system, or as an article of manufacture, such as a computer program product or computer-readable storage medium. The computer program product can be a computer storage medium readable by a computer system and encoding a computer program of instructions for executing a computer process. Accordingly, hardware or software (including firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.) can provide aspects discussed herein. Aspects can take the form of a computer program product on a computer-usable or computer-readable storage medium having computer-usable or computer-readable program code embodied in the medium for use by, or in connection with, an instruction execution system.
Although aspects have been described as being associated with data stored in memory and other storage mediums, data can also be stored on or read from other types of computer-readable media, such as secondary storage devices, like hard disks, floppy disks, or a CD-ROM, or other forms of RAM or ROM. The term computer-readable storage medium refers only to devices and articles of manufacture that store data or computer-executable instructions readable by a computing device. The term computer-readable storage media does not include computer-readable transmission media.
Aspects described herein may be used in various distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network. Aspects described herein can be implemented via local and remote computing and data storage systems. Such memory storage and processing units can be implemented in a computing device. Any suitable combination of hardware, software, or firmware may be used to implement the memory storage and processing unit. For example, the memory storage and processing unit may be implemented with computing device 900 or any other computing devices 922, in combination with computing device 900, wherein functionality can be brought together over a network in a distributed computing environment, for example, an intranet or the Internet, to perform the functions as described herein. The systems, devices, and processors described herein are provided as examples; however, other systems, devices, and processors can comprise the aforementioned memory storage and processing unit, consistent with the described aspects.
According to some aspects, a system for automatic data segmentation is provided. An example system may include a processing unit and a memory coupled to the processing unit. The memory may store instructions that, when executed by the processing unit, may cause the system to receive, from a plurality of data sources, input data associated with an individual whom a client has provided a service, the input data including one or more of accounts receivable data, payment history data, and credit related data associated with the individual, process the input data using a model to predict a recovery value for the individual, assign the individual to a segment based on the predicted recovery value and boundary definitions for a plurality of segments received from the client, the boundary definitions including a range of recovery values for each segment, and provide the segment to the client, wherein the segment informs the client of a collection strategy for the individual.
In other aspects, historical data associated with individuals whom the client provided a service may be received from the client, and the model may be trained with the historical data, where the historical data may include at least input data and a recovery value associated with each individual. The model may be a hyper-dimensional model that includes a dimension for each variable of the historical data. Each individual from the historical data may be represented as a data point corresponding to a value for each variable in the hyper-dimensional model. Spline interpolation may be performed within each dimension of the model.
In further aspects, regression analysis may be performed on the model to determine a relationship between the input data and the recovery value, and generate a formula based on the determined relationship. To process the input data using the model to predict the recovery value for the individual, the input data may be provided as input to the formula to receive the predicted recovery value as output. In response to receiving an actual recovery value for the individual, the model may be updated based on the actual recovery value.
In yet further aspects, segmentation data of the client may be provided to a comparison system communicatively coupled to the system, where the segmentation data may include at least the boundary definitions and recovery values for individuals serviced by the client, and the segmentation data may be used by the comparison system to compare collection efforts of the client to collection efforts across a plurality of clients. The recovery value may be a weighted average of a unit yield and a recovery rate, the unit yield may be a monetary amount received from the individual for the service, and the recovery rate may be a ratio of the monetary amount received from the individual to a total monetary amount due for the service.
In additional aspects, the accounts receivable data may include a total amount owed for the service, an amount owed by a guarantor, an amount owed by the individual, a remaining balance owed by the individual, and/or any payments. The payment history data may include invoices created for the individual over a predetermined time period, payments received from the individual for the invoices, a time gap between creation of the invoices and receipt of the payments, unpaid invoices, and/or time delays associated with the unpaid invoices. The credit related data may include a credit score, credit report data, and/or a healthcare-specific credit score of the individual.
According to some examples, a data segmentation method is provided. An example data segmentation method includes receiving, from a plurality of data sources, input data associated with an individual whom a client has provided a service, the input data including one or more of accounts receivable data, payment history data, and credit related data associated with the individual, and processing the input data using a model to predict a recovery value for the individual. The example data segmentation method may also include assigning the individual to a segment based on the predicted recovery value and boundary definitions for a plurality of segments received from the client, the boundary definitions including a range of recovery values for each segment, and providing the segment to the client, where the segment may inform the client of a collection strategy for the individual.
In other examples, the model may be trained with historical data associated with individuals whom the client provided a service, where the historical data may include at least input data and a recovery value associated with each individual. Regression analysis may be performed on the model to determine a relationship between the input data and the recovery value. A formula may be generated based on the determined relationship, where to process the input data using the model to predict the recovery value for the individual, the input data may be provided as input to the formula and the predicted recovery value may be received as output.
In further examples, the collection strategy may be determined based on the segment, and the collection strategy may be provided to the client along with the segment. Segmentation data of the client may be provided to a comparison system, where the segmentation data may include at least the boundary definitions and recovery values for individuals serviced by the client, and the segmentation data may be used by the comparison system to compare collection efforts of the client to collection efforts across a plurality of clients.
According to some aspects, a comparison system is provided. An example comparison system may include a processing unit, and a memory coupled to the processing unit. The memory may store instructions that, when executed by the processing unit, cause the system to receive and store segmentation data for a plurality of clients, the segmentation data for each client including at least boundary definitions for a plurality of segments and recovery values of individuals serviced, receive a request to compare collection efforts of a given client to collection efforts across one or more of the plurality of clients, aggregate recovery values for the one or more of the plurality of clients; and apply boundary definitions of the given client to the aggregated recovery values. The system may be further caused to, for each segment: determine an average aggregated recovery value across the plurality of clients, determine an average recovery value of the given client, and compare the average recovery value of the given client to the average aggregated recovery value across the plurality of clients and provide comparison results to the given client.
In other aspects, the request to compare collection efforts of the given client to collection efforts across the one or more of the plurality of clients may include a request to compare across an entirety of clients and/or a request to compare across a subset of clients having similar demographic characteristics to the given client. The comparison system may be further caused to receive and store demographic data associated with each of the plurality of clients to enable the comparison across the subset of clients.
The description and illustration of one or more aspects provided in this application are intended to provide a thorough and complete disclosure the full scope of the subject matter to those skilled in the art and are not intended to limit or restrict the scope of the invention as claimed in any way. The aspects, examples, and details provided in this application are considered sufficient to convey possession and enable those skilled in the art to practice the best mode of the claimed invention. Descriptions of structures, resources, operations, and acts considered well-known to those skilled in the art may be brief or omitted to avoid obscuring lesser known or unique aspects of the subject matter of this application. The claimed invention should not be construed as being limited to any embodiment, aspects, example, or detail provided in this application unless expressly stated herein. Regardless of whether shown or described collectively or separately, the various features (both structural and methodological) are intended to be selectively included or omitted to produce an embodiment with a particular set of features. Further, any or all of the functions and acts shown or described can be performed in any order or concurrently. Having been provided with the description and illustration of the present application, one skilled in the art may envision variations, modifications, and alternate embodiments falling within the spirit of the broader aspects of the general inventive concept provided in this application that do not depart from the broader scope of the present disclosure.
This application claims the benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/521,267, filed Jul. 24, 2019, titled “AUTOMATIC DATA SEGMENTATION SYSTEM,” and U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/702,646, filed Jul. 24, 2018, titled “Auto-Segmenter for Collections Optimization,” which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4346442 | Musmanno | Aug 1982 | A |
| 4491725 | Pritchard | Jan 1985 | A |
| 4616854 | Landrum et al. | Oct 1986 | A |
| 4692394 | Drexler | Sep 1987 | A |
| D297243 | Wells-Papanek et al. | Aug 1988 | S |
| 4869531 | Rees | Sep 1989 | A |
| 5101476 | Kukla | Mar 1992 | A |
| 5301105 | Cummings, Jr. | Apr 1994 | A |
| 5359509 | Little et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
| 5381487 | Shamos | Jan 1995 | A |
| 5483443 | Milstein et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
| 5500513 | Langhans et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
| 5517405 | McAndrew et al. | May 1996 | A |
| 5557514 | Seare et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5583760 | Klesse | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5644778 | Burks et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5748907 | Crane | May 1998 | A |
| 5764923 | Tallman et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5786998 | Neeson et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5832447 | Rieker et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5903830 | Joao et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5903881 | Schrader et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5915242 | Tsujii | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5920871 | Macri et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5991733 | Aleia et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5999596 | Walker et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6003007 | DiRienzo | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6012035 | Freeman, Jr. et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| D420993 | Decker | Feb 2000 | S |
| 6021943 | Chastain | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6044352 | Deavers | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6073104 | Field | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6112190 | Fletcher et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6128602 | Northington et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6157914 | Seto et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6163770 | Gamble et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6199115 | DiRienzo | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6202053 | Christiansen et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6208973 | Boyer et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6233566 | Levine et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6304848 | Singer | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6327578 | Linehan | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6338093 | DiRienzo | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6341265 | Provost et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6343271 | Peterson et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6343310 | DiRienzo | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| D455435 | Cassano et al. | Apr 2002 | S |
| 6374229 | Lowrey et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6422462 | Cohen | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6456979 | Flagg | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6480956 | DiRienzo | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6513018 | Culhane | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6587830 | Singer | Jul 2003 | B2 |
| 6757898 | Ilsen | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6826536 | Forman | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6904570 | Foote et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
| 6928487 | Eggebraaten et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
| 6968348 | Carone et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
| 6978268 | Thomas et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
| 6999972 | Lusen et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
| 7006994 | Campbell et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
| 7016856 | Wiggins | Mar 2006 | B1 |
| 7034691 | Rapaport et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
| 7039593 | Sager | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7054434 | Rodenbusch et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7069226 | Kleinfelter | Jun 2006 | B1 |
| 7072842 | Provost et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7158629 | Rodenbusch et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7174302 | Patricelli et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
| 7178020 | DiRienzo | Feb 2007 | B2 |
| 7191150 | Shao et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
| 7197468 | Patricelli et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
| 7246068 | Thomas, Jr. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7260586 | Ward | Aug 2007 | B1 |
| 7263492 | Suresh et al. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
| D550233 | Vigesaa | Sep 2007 | S |
| 7305359 | Bonnell | Dec 2007 | B2 |
| 7318059 | Thomas et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
| 7333937 | Baldwin, Jr. et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
| 7346768 | DiRienzo | Mar 2008 | B2 |
| 7370018 | Bryant, Jr. et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
| 7370349 | Holvey et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
| 7380707 | Fredman | Jun 2008 | B1 |
| 7401050 | O'Neill | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7403923 | Elliott et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7409632 | DiRienzo | Aug 2008 | B1 |
| 7426475 | Tangellapally et al. | Sep 2008 | B1 |
| 7464040 | Joao | Dec 2008 | B2 |
| 7467401 | Cicchitto | Dec 2008 | B2 |
| 7490048 | Joao | Feb 2009 | B2 |
| 7493266 | Gupta | Feb 2009 | B2 |
| 7519553 | Abe et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
| 7522038 | Edwards et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
| D593114 | Vakkalanka | May 2009 | S |
| 7536348 | Shao et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
| 7546262 | Ferguson et al. | Jun 2009 | B1 |
| 7555720 | O'Rourke | Jun 2009 | B2 |
| 7580831 | Haskell et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
| 7590932 | Britton et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| D604740 | Matheny et al. | Nov 2009 | S |
| 7617078 | Rao et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
| 7617116 | Amar et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
| 7647320 | Mok et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
| 7664660 | Korpman et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
| 7668738 | Wiggins | Feb 2010 | B2 |
| 7685003 | Hasan et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7689441 | Craft | Mar 2010 | B1 |
| 7689506 | Fei et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7693730 | Hasan et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7694129 | DiRienzo | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7698153 | Wiggins | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7720691 | Hasan et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7720700 | Balogh | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7720757 | Srinivasan et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7725330 | Rao et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7739132 | Denny, Jr. et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
| 7747453 | Ulrich et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
| 7747559 | Leitner et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
| 7756728 | Maughan et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 7761379 | Zoldi et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 7765148 | German et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| D621850 | Tarara et al. | Aug 2010 | S |
| D622280 | Tarara | Aug 2010 | S |
| 7769604 | Lefco et al. | Aug 2010 | B1 |
| 7778846 | Suresh et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7778850 | Wester | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7788040 | Haskell et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7788111 | Haskell et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| D624089 | Dyakov et al. | Sep 2010 | S |
| 7797165 | Beery et al. | Sep 2010 | B1 |
| 7797172 | Fitzgerald et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
| 7813937 | Pathria et al. | Oct 2010 | B1 |
| 7822621 | Chappel | Oct 2010 | B1 |
| 7860786 | Blackburn et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
| 7865373 | Punzak et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
| 7873528 | Bregante et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
| 7877269 | Bauer et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
| 7885836 | Pendleton et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7890420 | Haggerty et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7904305 | Suringa | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7904306 | Johnson et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7904317 | Lesswing et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
| 7917377 | Rao et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7917378 | Fitzgerald et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| D636401 | Vance et al. | Apr 2011 | S |
| D636779 | Boush et al. | Apr 2011 | S |
| 7949597 | Zadoorian et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
| D640264 | Fujii et al. | Jun 2011 | S |
| 7983932 | Kane | Jul 2011 | B2 |
| 8005687 | Pederson et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
| 8014756 | Henderson | Sep 2011 | B1 |
| 8036918 | Pinsonneault | Oct 2011 | B1 |
| D648342 | Pearson et al. | Nov 2011 | S |
| 8060376 | Horner | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8060424 | Kasower | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8069058 | Ambrose | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8073710 | Hasan et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
| 8078524 | Crawford et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
| 8090742 | Mok et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
| 8117045 | Lorsch | Feb 2012 | B2 |
| 8117646 | Lorsch | Feb 2012 | B2 |
| 8121855 | Lorsch | Feb 2012 | B2 |
| 8122061 | Guinness | Feb 2012 | B1 |
| D656503 | Brierley et al. | Mar 2012 | S |
| 8155979 | DiRienzo | Apr 2012 | B2 |
| 8166562 | Holvey et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
| 8175901 | Lefco et al. | May 2012 | B1 |
| 8180654 | Berkman et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8184408 | Murakami et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8185408 | Baldwin, Jr. et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8185414 | Law et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8204762 | Wester | Jun 2012 | B2 |
| 8214232 | Tyler et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8219415 | Tyler et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8229760 | Hasan et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8229770 | Bregante et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8234209 | Zadoorian et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8244556 | Ringold | Aug 2012 | B1 |
| 8250026 | Mok et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
| 8260635 | Hasan et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
| 8286085 | Denise | Oct 2012 | B1 |
| 8301466 | Lorsch | Oct 2012 | B2 |
| 8306829 | Starkey et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
| 8321239 | Hasan et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
| 8321240 | Lorsch | Nov 2012 | B2 |
| 8321243 | Harris, Sr. et al. | Nov 2012 | B1 |
| 8326656 | Beery et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
| 8332366 | Schumacher et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
| 8335672 | Ringold | Dec 2012 | B1 |
| 8352287 | Lorsch | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8352288 | Lorsch | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8352538 | Noonan et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8364498 | Sohr et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8364499 | Maughan et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8374885 | Stibel et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
| 8379352 | Braganca et al. | Feb 2013 | B1 |
| 8380537 | Hasan et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
| 8386274 | Pinsonneault et al. | Feb 2013 | B1 |
| 8392209 | Bertha et al. | Mar 2013 | B1 |
| 8392214 | Pinsonneault et al. | Mar 2013 | B1 |
| 8392219 | Pinsonneault et al. | Mar 2013 | B1 |
| 8392223 | Hasan et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
| 8407066 | Gentry et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
| 8412542 | Mok et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 8433586 | Wester | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 8438184 | Wang | May 2013 | B1 |
| 8438657 | Kaleja | May 2013 | B2 |
| 8442963 | Irish et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
| 8443428 | Martin et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
| 8447627 | Cruise | May 2013 | B1 |
| 8452611 | Johnson et al. | May 2013 | B1 |
| 8463816 | Skubacz et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
| 8473310 | Hasan et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
| D685813 | Bork et al. | Jul 2013 | S |
| 8489415 | Ringold | Jul 2013 | B1 |
| 8489423 | Hasan et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
| 8489424 | Hasan et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
| 8498883 | Lorsch | Jul 2013 | B2 |
| D687451 | Ghadge | Aug 2013 | S |
| 8510807 | Elazary et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
| 8521557 | Ringold et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
| 8527292 | Ozden | Sep 2013 | B1 |
| 8577849 | Yakout et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
| 8583684 | Kirmse | Nov 2013 | B1 |
| 8620725 | Neuweg et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
| 8639522 | Pathria et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
| 8660855 | Pourfallah et al. | Feb 2014 | B2 |
| 8666757 | Suresh et al. | Mar 2014 | B2 |
| 8682688 | Coluni et al. | Mar 2014 | B1 |
| 8694390 | Imrey et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
| 8762369 | Macho et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
| 8768826 | Imrey et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
| 8775291 | Mellman et al. | Jul 2014 | B1 |
| 8781850 | Bazzani et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
| D716333 | Chotin et al. | Oct 2014 | S |
| 8874476 | Taylor, III et al. | Oct 2014 | B1 |
| D721723 | Sureshkumar | Jan 2015 | S |
| 8930216 | Johnson et al. | Jan 2015 | B1 |
| 8943565 | Magee et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
| 8965848 | Caceres | Feb 2015 | B2 |
| D727928 | Allison et al. | Apr 2015 | S |
| 9002883 | Kirmse | Apr 2015 | B1 |
| D728589 | Tarara-Byyny et al. | May 2015 | S |
| D737831 | Lee | Sep 2015 | S |
| D748126 | Sarukkai et al. | Jan 2016 | S |
| 9262481 | Le et al. | Feb 2016 | B1 |
| D754144 | Vazquez et al. | Apr 2016 | S |
| D754675 | Vazquez et al. | Apr 2016 | S |
| D754676 | Vazquez et al. | Apr 2016 | S |
| 9324111 | Long et al. | Apr 2016 | B2 |
| D757070 | Dziuba | May 2016 | S |
| D764506 | Rathke et al. | Aug 2016 | S |
| 9436704 | Gershon et al. | Sep 2016 | B2 |
| D769263 | Jussekev et al. | Oct 2016 | S |
| D774052 | Gedrich et al. | Dec 2016 | S |
| D774058 | Dias et al. | Dec 2016 | S |
| 9514327 | Ford | Dec 2016 | B2 |
| 9529923 | Baird, III | Dec 2016 | B1 |
| D781887 | Dziuba et al. | Mar 2017 | S |
| D782526 | Rind et al. | Mar 2017 | S |
| 9589058 | Balduzzi et al. | Mar 2017 | B2 |
| 9613190 | Ford et al. | Apr 2017 | B2 |
| D790586 | Gopalan et al. | Jun 2017 | S |
| D793420 | Noack | Aug 2017 | S |
| D794047 | Gandhi et al. | Aug 2017 | S |
| D795274 | Rhodes et al. | Aug 2017 | S |
| 9727919 | Gregg et al. | Aug 2017 | B2 |
| D798312 | Tsujimura et al. | Sep 2017 | S |
| 9762533 | Ren et al. | Sep 2017 | B2 |
| 9762553 | Ford et al. | Sep 2017 | B2 |
| 9785696 | Yakhnenko et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
| 9830464 | Busch | Nov 2017 | B2 |
| 9847985 | Ochs et al. | Dec 2017 | B2 |
| D808986 | Dudey | Jan 2018 | S |
| 9864746 | Gilder et al. | Jan 2018 | B2 |
| D812081 | Saneii | Mar 2018 | S |
| 9928108 | Wagner et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
| 9946699 | Dye et al. | Apr 2018 | B1 |
| 9953047 | Lambert et al. | Apr 2018 | B2 |
| D819071 | Rathke et al. | May 2018 | S |
| 9965519 | Hattori et al. | May 2018 | B2 |
| 10033733 | Baltzer et al. | Jul 2018 | B2 |
| D831049 | Agarwal et al. | Oct 2018 | S |
| 10102259 | Agrawal et al. | Oct 2018 | B2 |
| 10102598 | MacKenzie et al. | Oct 2018 | B2 |
| D833458 | Blechschmidt et al. | Nov 2018 | S |
| D833459 | Blechschmidt et al. | Nov 2018 | S |
| D833460 | Blechschmidt et al. | Nov 2018 | S |
| 10122799 | Behunin | Nov 2018 | B2 |
| 10185836 | Busch | Jan 2019 | B2 |
| 10187399 | Katz | Jan 2019 | B2 |
| D841675 | Hoffman et al. | Feb 2019 | S |
| 10237262 | Ochs et al. | Mar 2019 | B2 |
| 10275576 | Furst et al. | Apr 2019 | B2 |
| 10275828 | Reisz et al. | Apr 2019 | B2 |
| D854030 | Dascola et al. | Jul 2019 | S |
| D854560 | Field et al. | Jul 2019 | S |
| D854561 | Field et al. | Jul 2019 | S |
| D854566 | Hsueh et al. | Jul 2019 | S |
| 10339271 | Beaton et al. | Jul 2019 | B2 |
| 10354211 | Pilkington et al. | Jul 2019 | B1 |
| 10362135 | McNeese et al. | Jul 2019 | B2 |
| 10366351 | Whittier et al. | Jul 2019 | B2 |
| 10380320 | Farmer et al. | Aug 2019 | B2 |
| 10387615 | Derer | Aug 2019 | B2 |
| 10402480 | Aghaiipour | Sep 2019 | B2 |
| 10402539 | Johnson et al. | Sep 2019 | B2 |
| 10410305 | Pilkington et al. | Sep 2019 | B1 |
| 10419347 | Porteous et al. | Sep 2019 | B2 |
| 10430428 | Ott et al. | Oct 2019 | B2 |
| 10462004 | Hsiao et al. | Oct 2019 | B2 |
| D871431 | Cullum et al. | Dec 2019 | S |
| 10506051 | Behunin | Dec 2019 | B2 |
| 10510046 | Whittier et al. | Dec 2019 | B2 |
| 10546098 | Derer | Jan 2020 | B2 |
| 10614495 | Busch et al. | Apr 2020 | B2 |
| 10664463 | Ananthakrishnan | May 2020 | B2 |
| D888084 | Doti et al. | Jun 2020 | S |
| 10685401 | Hanson et al. | Jun 2020 | B1 |
| 10701057 | Ochs et al. | Jun 2020 | B2 |
| 10733546 | Pilkington et al. | Aug 2020 | B2 |
| 10740332 | Zhang et al. | Aug 2020 | B2 |
| 10783137 | Katz | Sep 2020 | B2 |
| 10817966 | Dennis et al. | Oct 2020 | B2 |
| 10853900 | Hua et al. | Dec 2020 | B2 |
| 10891268 | Dennis et al. | Jan 2021 | B2 |
| 10902002 | Johnson et al. | Jan 2021 | B2 |
| 11080110 | Pilkington et al. | Aug 2021 | B2 |
| 11101805 | McGrath | Aug 2021 | B2 |
| 11102311 | Kurth et al. | Aug 2021 | B2 |
| 11194829 | Dennis et al. | Dec 2021 | B2 |
| 11327975 | Rowe et al. | May 2022 | B2 |
| 11334822 | Long et al. | May 2022 | B2 |
| 11380435 | Hoffman et al. | Jul 2022 | B2 |
| 11504011 | Jain | Nov 2022 | B1 |
| 11645344 | McGrath et al. | May 2023 | B2 |
| 20010014868 | Herz et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
| 20020010594 | Levine | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020062249 | Iannacci | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020077869 | Doyle et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020099635 | Guiragosian | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020103680 | Newman | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020116245 | Hinkle et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020123946 | Haworth et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020138417 | Lawrence | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020147617 | Schoenbaum et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020188467 | Eke | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020198741 | Randazzo | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020198796 | White et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030018496 | Hambright et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030028402 | Ulrich et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030036926 | Starkey et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030037054 | Dutta et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030041019 | Vagim, III et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030050795 | Baldwin, Jr. et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030063072 | Brandenberg et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030105648 | Schurenberg et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030120652 | Tifft | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030219709 | Olenick et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20030229507 | Perge | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20030233259 | Mistretta et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20030233278 | Marshall | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20030236747 | Sager | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040006489 | Bynon | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040044604 | O'Neil | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040073456 | Gottlieb et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040073457 | Kalies | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040078228 | Fitzgerald et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040111292 | Hutchins | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040117211 | Bonnell | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040148203 | Whitaker et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040153336 | Virdee et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040172313 | Stein et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20050015280 | Gabel et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050038670 | Takkar et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050038772 | Colrain | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050044357 | Fano | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050065816 | Limberg et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050086071 | Fox, Jr. et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050086072 | Fox, Jr. et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050091080 | Biats, Jr. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050091164 | Varble | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050147947 | Cookson, Jr. et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050187948 | Monitzer et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050197954 | Maitland et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050209880 | Drelicharz et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050209885 | Lamb et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050209893 | Nahra et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050228692 | Hodgon | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050234789 | Czyzewski et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050246200 | Thompson et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050251429 | Ammer et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050288964 | Lutzen et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060020360 | Wu | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060026156 | Zuleba | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060031301 | Herz et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060074991 | Lussier et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060080139 | Mainzer | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060106653 | Lis | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060136264 | Ealon | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060149603 | Patterson et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060178915 | Chao | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060184397 | Wester | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060190334 | Smith | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060212315 | Wiggins | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060235743 | Long et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060247947 | Suringa | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060247949 | Shorrosh | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060247991 | Jin et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060282359 | Nobili et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20060287949 | Silverman | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20060293923 | Farris | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070005402 | Kennedy et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070005403 | Kennedy et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070011026 | Higgins et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070022141 | Singleton et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070043659 | Kass et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070043661 | Kass et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070050208 | Bardis et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070050219 | Sohr et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070061393 | Moore | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070100943 | Brunswig et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070118410 | Nadai | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070124235 | Chakraborty et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070168234 | Ruthowski et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070174122 | Howard et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070198336 | Thompson | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070198407 | Winter | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070203750 | Volcheck | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070208640 | Banasiak et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070214005 | Kennedy | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070233519 | Lorsch | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070258626 | Reiner | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070266037 | Terry et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070266439 | Kraft | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070276750 | Stuart | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070279187 | Hekmatpour et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070294126 | Maggio | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070299697 | Friedlander et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070299699 | Policelli et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070299776 | Frustaci et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080005669 | Eilertsen et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080010096 | Patterson et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080033750 | Burriss et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080046803 | Beauchamp et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080059224 | Schechter | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080091463 | Shakamuri | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080109315 | Huang et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080120129 | Seubert et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080120133 | Krishnaswami et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080121033 | Molnar | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080126335 | Gandhi et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080133325 | De et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080140599 | Pacha et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080183504 | Highley | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080183693 | Arasu et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080189202 | Zadoorian et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080195600 | Deakter | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080208631 | Morita et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080208633 | Navani | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080208914 | Navani | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080244008 | Wilkinson et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080270363 | Hunt et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080275737 | Gentry et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080288283 | Baldwin, Jr. et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080300893 | Mendoza et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20090006439 | Joseph et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090019552 | McLaughlin et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090024517 | Crooks | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090024623 | Broder et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090030727 | Revak et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090037323 | Feinstein et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090048877 | Binns et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090048897 | Parikshya et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090055222 | Lorsch | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090063197 | Lisle | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090094055 | Gage, Jr. et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090094064 | Tyler et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090106178 | Chu | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090106242 | McGrew et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090138277 | Warren et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090144088 | Zubiller et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090144094 | Morey et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090157435 | Seib | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090177480 | Chen et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090187432 | Scalet et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090248481 | Dick et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090254375 | Martinez et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090271220 | Radoccia et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090281827 | Pendleton et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090287837 | Feisher | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090319294 | Phillips et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090326976 | Morris | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100049695 | Morsa | Feb 2010 | A2 |
| 20100063907 | Savani et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100070296 | Massoumi et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100070307 | Sinvhal-Sharma | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100082362 | Salsbury et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100142698 | Spottiswoode et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100175024 | Schumacher et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100179838 | Basant et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100183199 | Smith et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100211413 | Tholl et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100217622 | Brown et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100217837 | Ansari et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100229184 | Satou et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100257074 | Hendrickson | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100257126 | Tolan et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100274582 | Beraja et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100274583 | Beraja et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100280843 | Beraja et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100293090 | Domenikos et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100305993 | Fisher | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20100318372 | Band et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20100332252 | Beraja et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110002384 | Mallat et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110010189 | Dean et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110015946 | Buckowsky et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110071846 | Crystal et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110071854 | Medeiros et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110082794 | Blechman | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110099025 | Blum | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110099027 | Weathers | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110106617 | Cooper | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110112873 | Allen et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110126275 | Anderson et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110179011 | Cardno et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110247051 | Bulumulla et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110251855 | Lorsch | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110257992 | Scantland et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20120046965 | Ryan et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120059674 | Horner | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120078663 | Lorsch | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120101847 | Johnson et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120102101 | Wenig et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120116807 | Hane et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120123789 | Patel | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120130724 | Flegel et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120130746 | Baker | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120143637 | Paradis et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120191479 | Gupta et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120203572 | Christensen | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120203798 | Gifford et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120215552 | Goldschmidt | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120215768 | Zellweger | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120226889 | Merriman et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120265553 | Baldwin, Jr. et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120290660 | Rao et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120290950 | Rapaport et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120302268 | Casto et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120303386 | Zavaleta et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120331567 | Shelton | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20130018671 | Hussam | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130054274 | Katyal | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130054570 | Gonzales et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130073449 | Voynow et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130080192 | Bucur et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130090945 | Horner | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130096942 | Bowles et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130110704 | Padron et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130138458 | Lorsch | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130138555 | Shishkov | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130144645 | Bjorner et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130179194 | Lorsch | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130179195 | Lorsch | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130191163 | Lorsch | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130231960 | Lorsch | Sep 2013 | A1 |
| 20130282394 | Baldwin et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130288647 | Turgeman | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130339314 | Carpentier et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20140012740 | Carson et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140012780 | Sanders | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140039929 | Vdovjak et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140040274 | Aravamudan et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140095239 | Mansfield et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140095541 | Herwadkar et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140142964 | Lang et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140149135 | Boerger et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140149303 | Band et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140180826 | Boal | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140189483 | Awan et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140189818 | Meyer | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140222684 | Feisher | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140236572 | Meshulam et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140244276 | Dyke et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140244309 | Francois | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140245015 | Velmmoor et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140324474 | Kunz | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140365242 | Neff | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20140372458 | Jurca | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20140379361 | Mahadkar et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20140379374 | Vinals | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20150026153 | Gupta et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150113393 | Burgin et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150120725 | de Vries et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150127364 | Long et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150127397 | Madala | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150135300 | Ford | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150154698 | Stibel et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150161357 | Small | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150163206 | McCarthy et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150186403 | Srivastava et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150193749 | Ivanoff et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150286747 | Anastasakos et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150310184 | Yui | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150310188 | Ford et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150324920 | Wilson et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150348188 | Chen | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150356142 | Proux | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150363449 | Lambert et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20160011746 | Lategan | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160034642 | Ehrhart et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
| 20160037197 | Kitts et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
| 20160041800 | Jacobs et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
| 20160055142 | Strassner | Feb 2016 | A1 |
| 20160062903 | Gao et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160086222 | Kurapati | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160092641 | Delaney et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160104508 | Chee et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20160110523 | Francois | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20160125149 | Abramowitz | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160132605 | Jiang | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160147844 | Adderly et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160147951 | Francois et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160171027 | Agrawal et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160203279 | Srinivas et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
| 20160231900 | Meaney et al. | Aug 2016 | A1 |
| 20160267115 | Pletcher et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160283520 | Yamaji et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160283548 | Han et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160335341 | Krauss | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160342758 | Ivnoff | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20170004279 | Pingali et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170006008 | Moran et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170039242 | Milton et al. | Feb 2017 | A1 |
| 20170053002 | Bowman et al. | Feb 2017 | A1 |
| 20170091388 | Zolla et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170091861 | Bianchi et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170098284 | Schneider | Apr 2017 | A1 |
| 20170111372 | Jamaa | Apr 2017 | A1 |
| 20170116373 | Ginsburg et al. | Apr 2017 | A1 |
| 20170124526 | Sanderford et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170132234 | Mehta | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170147650 | Hattori et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170169168 | Batchelor et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170235901 | Johnson et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20170249651 | Pulitzer | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20170272816 | Olds | Sep 2017 | A1 |
| 20170277838 | Derer | Sep 2017 | A1 |
| 20170329468 | Schon et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
| 20180039705 | Eyal et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
| 20180102936 | Curtis | Apr 2018 | A1 |
| 20180130555 | Chronis | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180165349 | Vaughan | Jun 2018 | A1 |
| 20180191867 | Siebel et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
| 20180285872 | Millhouse et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
| 20180285969 | Busch et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
| 20180293249 | Tabares | Oct 2018 | A1 |
| 20180358130 | Schmidt | Dec 2018 | A1 |
| 20190051389 | Meittunen et al. | Feb 2019 | A1 |
| 20190095991 | Swaminathan et al. | Mar 2019 | A1 |
| 20190206520 | Eteminan et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
| 20190236714 | Hoerle et al. | Aug 2019 | A1 |
| 20190267141 | Fillmore | Aug 2019 | A1 |
| 20200034926 | Busch et al. | Jan 2020 | A1 |
| 20200126137 | Pilkington et al. | Apr 2020 | A1 |
| 20200145447 | Coffey et al. | May 2020 | A1 |
| 20200403956 | Adamski et al. | Dec 2020 | A1 |
| 20210035679 | Pankoke et al. | Feb 2021 | A1 |
| 20210064681 | McGrath et al. | Mar 2021 | A1 |
| 20210142914 | Hua et al. | May 2021 | A1 |
| 20210304265 | Yedlarajaiah et al. | Sep 2021 | A1 |
| 20210334462 | Kukreja | Oct 2021 | A1 |
| 20220076813 | Green et al. | Mar 2022 | A1 |
| 20220253592 | Rao | Aug 2022 | A1 |
| 20230214455 | Menard et al. | Jul 2023 | A1 |
| 20230215563 | Chaudhuri | Jul 2023 | A1 |
| 20230307136 | Tsang et al. | Sep 2023 | A1 |
| 20240013926 | Hua et al. | Jan 2024 | A1 |
| 20240127305 | Pilkington et al. | Apr 2024 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 0 297 780 | Jan 1989 | EP |
| 2003-216817 | Jul 2003 | JP |
| 2004-126793 | Apr 2004 | JP |
| WO 03048889 | Jun 2003 | WO |
| WO 2007022510 | Feb 2007 | WO |
| WO 2008133721 | Nov 2008 | WO |
| WO 2022006441 | Jan 2022 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| “A Google Health update,” Google Official Blog, Sep. 15, 2010 in 4 pages, http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/google-health-update.html. |
| Agreement Between Dallas Computer Services, dba DCS Information Systems and the Texas Department of Human Services, to Provide Data Brokering Services, Contract #324Z-8-05203 signed Jun. 15, 1998 and including corresponding documents in 38 pages. [Search America—Exhibit 1010]. |
| Belford, Terrence, “Technology Quarterly: Computers, Internet Speeds Credit Checks System Tailored for Doctors, Dentists,” The Globe and Mail (Canada), Section: Report on Business Special Reports, p. C10, Mar. 18, 1997. |
| Bhattacharyya, Suman, “Explainer: How Neural Networks are Changing Credit Scores”, https://digiday.com/marketing/wtf-neuro-decision-making/, Feb. 27, 2017, pp. 3. |
| Butkus, Charles, “System Cuts Medicaid Processing to 11 Cents a Claim”, ComputerWorld, May 21, 1975, pp. 51 and 53. |
| “Charity Care Policy and Procedure”, Report to the Community for the Year 2002, John T. Mather Memorial Hospital, Port Jefferson, NY, Mar. 2003, pp. 30-33 (6 pages total). |
| Corepoint Health, “The Continuity of Care Document—Changing the Landscape of Healthcare Information Exchange,” Jan. 2009, pp. 9. |
| Compliance Data Systems, Inc. T-PASS Catalogue Profile, Sep. 8, 1994, available at http://www.compliancedata.com/catalogue.html. |
| Curriculum Vitae of Kenneth A. Zeger dated Jan. 8, 2013 in 20 pages. |
| Dé, Andy, “Will mHealth Apps and Devices Empower ePatients for Wellness and Disease Management? A Case Study,” Jan. 10, 2011 in 6 pages, http://www.healthsciencestrategy.com/2011/04/will-mhealth-apps-and-devices-empower-epatients-for-wellness-and-disease-management-a-case-study-2/. |
| Dushimimana et al., “Use of Machine Learning Techniques to Create a Credit Score Model for Airtime Loans”, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, Aug. 13, 2020, pp. 11. |
| Ellis et al., “Health Care Demand Elasticities by Type of Service”, Journal of Health Economics, Jul. 29, 2017, vol. 55, pp. 232-243. |
| “Enterprise Technology Management Architecture”, Texas Department of Human Services, Version 1.0, Aug. 31, 1999, pp. 22. |
| “Experian Helps Verify the Identity of Patients and Provide Secure Enrollment to Healthcare Portals by Integrating with Major Electronic Medical Records Platform,” http://press.experian.com/United-States/Press-Release/experian-helps-verify-the-identity-of-patients-and-provide-secure-enrollment-to-healthcare.aspx?&p=1, Dec. 19, 2013, pp. 2. |
| “Factual Data Corp. Completes First Interface with Automated Underwriting System for Subprime Lenders”, PR Newswire, Loveland, CO, Jan. 17, 2000. |
| Frohlich, Robert M., Jr., “Credit Scoring in a Hospital Setting”, University of North Florida Thesis, Paper 97, Apr. 1997, pp. 82. |
| Glenn, Brandon, “Multi-provider patient portals get big boost with ONC ruling”, Feb. 25, 2013, http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/medical-economics/news/user-defined-tags/meaningful-use/multi-provider-patient-portals-get-big-boost in 2 pages. |
| Healow.com, Various screenshots from page titled “Health and Online Wellness,” https://healow.com/apps/jsp/webview/index.jsp printed Aug. 19, 2013 in 4 pages. |
| Healthspek.com, “How Good Are We?” http://healthspek.com/how-good-are-we/ printed Jan. 21, 2014 in 2 pages. |
| “Healthspek Users Can Now Import Their Doctors' Records into Their Personal Health Record,” PRWeb, Nashville, TN, Jan. 14, 2014, pp. 1 http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/01/prweb11485346.htm. |
| HealthVault, “Share Health Information,” https://account.healthvault.com/sharerecord.aspx, printed Feb. 20, 2013 in 2 pages. |
| HealthVault, “What Can you do with HealthVault?” https://www.healthvault.com/us/en/overview,http://www.eweek.com/mobile/diversinet-launches-mobihealth-wallet-for-patient-data-sharing/, printed Feb. 20, 2013 in 2 pages. |
| “HelpWorks Family of Products Offers Solutions for Providers of Social Services”, Software Announcement, Letter No. 297-476, Nov. 11, 1997, http://www.www-304.ibm.com/jct01003c/cgi-bin/common/ssi/ssialias?infotype=an&subtype=ca&htmlfid=897/ENUS297-476&appname=xldata&language=enus. |
| “HelpWorks: One-Stop Screening for the Benefits Your Clients Need”, Peter Martin Associates, Inc. website, HelpWorks description, Jul. 11, 2000, http://web.archive.org/web/20000711013829/http://www.petermartin.com/Products/HelpWorks/hw_info02.html. |
| Horowitz, Brian T., “Diversinet Launches MobiHealth Wallet for Patient Data Sharing,” eWeek, Dec. 4, 2012, http://www.eweek.com/mobile/diversinet-launches-mobihealth-wallet-for-patient-data-sharing/. |
| igihealth.com, “Orbit® PHR: Personal Health Record (PHR),” http://www.igihealth.com/consumers/orbit_phr.html, printed Jan. 21, 2014 in 2 pages. |
| “Implementation Advance Planning Document”, Implementation Advance Planning Document, TIERS, Texas Department of Human Services, Eric M. Bost, Commissioner, May 2000, pp. 128. |
| Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS), Medi-Cal Eligibility Procedures Manual, Apr. 2000, pp. 164. |
| InsightsOne.com, “Healthcare,” http://insightsone.com/healthcare-predictive-analytics/ printed Mar. 6, 2014 in 5 pages. |
| Jafari et al., “Expert Pruning Based on Genetic Algorithm in Regression Problems”, ACIIDS 2012: Intelligent Information and Database Systems , 2012, pp. 79-88. |
| Jones, Sandra, “Small Software Firm Aiming for Internet”, ChicagoBusiness.com, Mar. 13, 2000. |
| Krompass et al., “Managing Long-Running Queries”, Conference: EDBT 2009, 12th International Conference on Extending Database Technology, Saint Petersburg, Russia, Mar. 24-26, 2009, pp. 132-143. |
| Liu et al., “Price and Income Elasticity of the Demand for Health Insurance and Health Care Services: A Critical Review of the Literature”, Final Report, Mathemetica Policy Research, Inc., Contract No. 233-02-0086, MPR Reference No. 6203-042, Mar. 24, 2006, pp. 98. |
| “More Than a Pretty Face—How Intacct Dashboards Keep Your FQHC Key Metrics Front and Center”, Mar. 1, 2016, posted at xanegy.com, [site visited Sep. 19, 2018]. http://xanegy.com/more-than-a-pretty-face-how-intacct-dashboards-keep-you-r-fqhc-key-metrics-front-and-center, pp. 2. |
| Mowll, Charles, “Setting a Credit Policy for Patient Accounts”, Healthcare Financial Management, Jan. 1989, pp. 3. |
| Mowll, Charles, “Knowing How and When to Grant Credit Healthcare Organizations”, Healthcare Financial Management, Feb. 1989, pp. 4. |
| Network Sciences Website, Community Health and Social Services Information System (CHASSIS) and Medicaider software by Network Sciences, LLC, on sale and/or in public use in or around 2000, as archived Aug. 28, 2008 in 1 page, https://web.archive.org/web/20080828164040/http://www.netsci.net/index.asp. |
| Newsom v. Vanderbilt University et al., Opinion, 453 F.Supp. 401 (1978), Jun. 1, 1978, pp. 24. |
| “Parse”, Definition from PC Magazine Encyclopedia, http://www/pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term_0,2542,t=parse&i=48862,00.asp as downloaded Mar. 5, 2012. |
| “Patient Schedule Demo Schedule” Jan. 2015, posted at ezdatamunch.com, [site visited Sep. 19, 2018]. https://ezdatamunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01 /Patient-Schedule-Demo_-Schedule.png, pp. 1. |
| “Patients May be Frauds”, The Victoria Advocate, Victoria, Texas, 138th Year—No. 194, p. 10A, Nov. 17, 1983. |
| PayingForSeniorCare.com, Pharmaceutical Patient Assistance Programs: Lowering the Cost of Medications, http://payingforseniorcare.com/patient-assistance-programs, Apr. 14, 2009, pp. 6. |
| PC411, Inc. “Reverse Searching Now Available on PC411,” http://web.archive.org/web/19961103061843/http://www.pc411.com/PR_Revrs.html Apr. 9, 1996 in 2 pages. |
| “Peter Martin Releases HelpWorks Web Edition”, Business Wire, Chicago, Sep. 28, 1999. |
| “Response Automated Decision Systems”, responsecorp.com, Inc., Press Release, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Jun. 22, 2000, http://web.archive.org/web/20010420061717/http://www.responsecorp.com/news.html. |
| Ringel et al., “The Elasticity of Demand for Health Care: A Review of the Literature and Its Application to the Military Health System”, National Defense Research Institute, RAND Health, 2005, pp. 68. |
| Sear, Alan M., Ph.D., “An Expert System for Determining Medicaid Eligibility”, Journal of Medical Systems, Oct. 1988, vol. 12, Issue 5, pp. 275-283. |
| Search America, Inc. v. TransUnion Intelligence LLC, Declaration of Kenneth Zeger in re: U.S. Pat. No. 7,333,937, Signed Jul. 24, 2013, pp. 9. |
| Search America, Inc. v. TransUnion Intelligence LLC, Decision, Case No. CBM2013-00038, U.S. Pat. No. 7,333,937, Feb. 7, 2014, pp. 24. |
| Search America, Inc. v. TransUnion Intelligence LLC, Declaration of Kenneth Zeger in re: U.S. Pat. No. 8,185,408, Signed Jul. 29, 2013, pp. 9. |
| Search America, Inc. v. TransUnion Intelligence LLC, Patent Owner Transunion Intelligence, LLC's Preliminary Response, Case No. CBM2013-00037, U.S. Pat. No. 7,333,937, Nov. 11, 2013, pp. 28. |
| Search America, Inc. v. TransUnion Intelligence LLC, Patent Owner Transunion Intelligence, LLC's Preliminary Response, Case No. CBM2013-00038, U.S. Pat. No. 8,185,408, Nov. 11, 2013, pp. 26. |
| Search America, Inc. v. TransUnion Intelligence LLC, Decision, Case No. CBM2013-00038, U.S. Pat. No. 8,185,408, Feb. 7, 2014, pp. 22. |
| Search America, Inc. v. TransUnion Intelligence LLC, Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 321 and Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, U.S. Pat. No. 8,185,408, Jul. 29, 2013, pp. 84. |
| Search America, Inc. v. TransUnion Intelligence LLC, Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 321 and Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Case No. U.S. Pat. No. 7,333,937, Jul. 29, 2013, pp. 88. |
| Search America, Inc. v. TransUnion Intelligence LLC, Scheduling Order, Case No. CBM2013-00037, U.S. Pat. No. 7,333,937, Feb. 7, 2014, pp. 7. |
| Search America, Inc. v. TransUnion Intelligence LLC, Scheduling Order, Case No. CBM2013-00038, U.S. Pat. No. 8,185,408, Feb. 7, 2014, pp. 6. |
| “StarNet Financial, Inc. Acquires Proprietary Rights to Sub-Prime Underwriting System Through Strategic Alliance With TRAkkER Corporation”, PR Newswire, Dallas, TX, Sep. 13, 1999. |
| Talburt et al., “Entity Information Life Cycle for Big Data: Master Data Management and Information Integration”, Elsevier, 2015, 1st Ed, pp. 255. |
| Technical Architecture Framework, TIERS, May 8, 2000, pp. 67. |
| Tennant, Don, “How a Health Insurance Provider Uses Big Data to Predict Patient Needs,” http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/from-under-the-rug/how-a-health-insurance-provider-uses-big-data-to-predict-patient-needs.html, printed Mar. 6, 2014 in 2 pages. |
| Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Texas Performance Review, “Against the Grain: vol. 2,” 1993, as printed Dec. 14, 2012 in 7 pages, from http://www.window.texas.gov/tpr/atg/atg/atgtoc.html. |
| Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Texas Performance Review, “Gaining Ground: vol. 2,” 1994, as printed Dec. 14, 2012 in 4 pages, from http://www.window.texas.gov/tpr/tprgg/v2home.html. |
| Texas Department of Human Services, Revision Notice, Revision 99-1, Effective: Jan. 1, 1999, dated Dec. 11, 1998, pp. 11. |
| Texas Department of Human Services, Revision Notice, Revision 99-3, Effective: Jul. 1, 1999, dated May 28, 1999, pp. 11. |
| Texas Department of Human Services, Revision Notice, Revision 99-6, Effective: Oct. 1, 1999, dated Sep. 3, 1999, pp. 20. |
| Texas Department of Human Services, Revision Notice, Revision 00-3, Effective: Apr. 1, 2000, dated Mar. 3, 2000, pp. 17. |
| Texas Department of Human Services, OIG, 3000—Case Development, Jan. 1999, pp. 3. |
| Texas Department of Human Services, System Specifications, Section 3.2, Current System Architecture and Functional Specifications, NOA Assembled, pp. 21, as last modified Jul. 4, 2000. |
| Texas Department of Human Services, System Specifications, Section 3.3, Current System Architecture and Functional Specifications, GWS Assembled, pp. 752, as last modified Jul. 4, 2000. |
| Texas Department of Human Services, System Specifications, Section 3.3, Current System Architecture and Functional Specifications, GWS Assembled, pp. 754, as last modified Jul. 4, 2000. |
| Texas Department of Human Services, System Specifications, Section 3.3.1, TESS System, pp. 47, as last modified Jul. 4, 2000. |
| Texas Department of Human Services, System Specifications, Section 3.4, Current System Architecture and Functional Specifications, LTCMED Assembled, pp. 372, as last modified Jul. 4, 2000. |
| Texas Department of Human Services, System Specifications, Section 3.5, Current System Architecture and Functional Specifications, SAVERR FS Assembled, pp. 141, as last modified Jul. 4, 2000. |
| Texas Department of Human Services, System Specifications, Section 3.6, SAVERR TANF Assembled, pp. 219., as last modified Jul. 4, 2000. |
| Texas Department of Human Services, System Specifications, Section 3.7, Current System Architecture and Functional Specifications, SAVERR INTER/MED, pp. 838, as last modified Jul. 5, 2000. |
| Texas Department of Human Services, System Specifications, Section 3.8, Current System Architecture and Functional Specifications, pp. 172, as last modified Jul. 4, 2000. |
| “Third Party Assistance Software System (T-PASS)”, Compliance Data Systems, Inc. website, T-PASS Information Page, Oct. 1, 1998, available at http://web.archive.org/web/20010308232545/http://compliancedata.com/tpass.html#Profile. |
| “TIERS Procurement Information,” Texas Department of Human Services, as captured May 26, 2000 http://web.archive.org/web/20000526131749/http://www.dhs.state.tx.us/programs/TIERS/procurement.html in 3 pages. |
| TRAkkER Corporation website, trakkercorp.com, TRAkkER Software Description, May 26, 2000, available at http://web.archive.org/web/20000526234204/http://trakkercorp.com/page4.html. |
| TransUnion Intelligence LLC v. Search America, Inc. , Videotape Deposition of James Sunyar, Nov. 12, 2012, Case No. 0:11-CV-01075-EJS-FLN, pp. 128. |
| TransUnion Intelligence LLC v. Search America, Inc. , Oral and Videotape Deposition of Bobby Keith Graves, Oct. 26, 2012, Case No. 0:11-CV-01075-PJS-FLN, pp. 181. |
| TransUnion Intelligence LLC v. Search America, Inc. , Oral and Videotape Deposition of Kerby Spruiell, May 13, 2013, Case No. 0:11-CV-01075, pp. 257. |
| TransUnion Intelligence LLC v. Search America, Inc. , Videotape Deposition of Jodi Halpine, Oct. 16, 2012, Case No. 0:11-CV-01075-EJS-FLN, pp. 176. |
| TransUnion Intelligence LLC v. Search America, Inc. , Jury Trial Demand, Non-Confidential Redacted Version, Case No. 0:11-CV-01075-EJS-FLN, Nov. 16, 2012, pp. 42. |
| TransUnion Intelligence LLC v. Search America, Inc. , Jury Trial Demand, Case No. 0:11-cv-01075-PJS-FLN, Nov. 13, 2012, pp. 18. |
| United States of America v. Patricia Lahaie Mahaney, Government's Response to the Standing Discovery Order, Case:0:03-cr-60022-JIC, Entered into docket Jun. 17, 2003, pp. 16. |
| Varpa et al., “Genetic Algorithm Based Approach in Attribute Weighting for a Medical Data Set”, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Journal of Computational Medicine, Article ID 526801, 2014, pp. 11. |
| Vest et al., “Determinants of Preventable Readmissions in the United States: A Systematic Review”, Implementation Science, 2010, vol. 5, No. 88, pp. 28. |
| Washington Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES), 1996, pp. 13. |
| Zhou et al., “Ensembling Neural Networks: Many Could be Better Than All”, Artificial Intelligence, 2002, vol. 137, pp. 239-263. |
| Choudhury et al., “Evaluating Patient Readmission Risk: A Predictive Analytics Approach”, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Published Dec. 6, 2018, vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 1320-1331. |
| Mohanty et al., “A Multi-Modal Machine Learning Approach Towards Predicting Patient Readmission”, 2020 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), 2020, pp. 2027-2035. |
| Xiao et al., “Readmission Prediction Via Deep Contextual Embedding of Clinical Concepts”, PLOS One, Published Apr. 9, 2018, pp. 15. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20240212041 A1 | Jun 2024 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 62702646 | Jul 2018 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 16521267 | Jul 2019 | US |
| Child | 18527040 | US |