DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Non-Final Office action is in reply to the amendments/remarks filed on 15 May 2026.
Claims 8, 11-19, 27 have been canceled.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 20-26, and 28-29 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 05/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 20-26, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 the claims fall within the statutory categories (namely, a system and non-transitory computer readable memory).
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Representative claim 1 recites in part,
receiving medical professional preferences for searching the database, the medical professional preferences including at least: a specialty area of practice, years of experience, a location, and receiving medical professional quality measure priority values, each priority value specifying a relative priority for a medical professional quality measure with respect to other quality measures specified within individual ones of the medical professional records; executing a query on the database and rendering a responsive set of medical professional records based on the medical professional preferences; applying a quality score threshold to the quality score specified within ones of the responsive set of medical professional records to render a set of qualified medical professional records; computing a set of match scores for the set of qualified medical professional records, each individual match score, for a corresponding individual one of the set of qualified medical professional records, being computed based upon: (1) the received medical professional quality measure priority values, and (2) the quality measures specified within the individual medical professional record; and outputting a ranked listing of the set of qualified medical professional records, according to the computed set of match scores, for presentation to a user,
The claim limitations can be considered as a mental process abstract idea category as they are related to gathering and analyzing medical professional records that meet medical professional preferences, medical professional quality measure priority values, and quality score threshold; computing match scores for the qualified medical records and outputting a ranked listing of the set of qualified medical professional records according to the computed set of match score.
The steps of receiving, processing, analyzing, and transmitting data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. The Courts generally treat collecting information as well as analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds and/or by pen & paper as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The focus of the claims is on “selecting certain information, analyzing it, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis. That is all abstract.” (SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). See also Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results from certain results of the collection and analysis was held to be an abstract idea. The recited steps do not involve any activities that cannot be practically accomplished by the human mind by evaluating obtained medical records and computing match scores by human judgement and/or via pen & paper. Furthermore, “the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer processor does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.” See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1098. The Courts have established that even if the recitation of generic computer components is present, the claim can still be considered a mental process if it covers performance in the mind using observation, evaluation, and judgment and/or utilizing pen & paper, as is the case here. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson”). Accordingly, the claims 1 and 20 recite an abstract idea.
Furthermore, representative claim 1 recites the concept of managing medical practice by selecting medical professionals based on their professional records and an ordering based on selection parameters, which is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, one of certain methods of organizing human activity. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computing components does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitations include additional elements of “an improved graphical user interface comprising an enhanced graphical user interface comprising user input parameter value designation features,” “a networked computer system”, “an electronic database” for maintaining and storing data; “a memory” storing computer-executable instructions; “a controller” in communication with the memory having a processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions, the plurality of “slider bars, of the enhanced graphical user interface comprising the variety of user input controls”, are configured to facilitate, in association with the receiving medical professional quality measure priority values users designating ones of the medical professional quality measure priority values. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality (see specification at [0192]: general-purpose microprocessors for receiving, storing, querying, computing, outputting, inputting information) and are merely invoked as tools to carry out the abstract concept.
The steps of receiving, querying the database, applying a quality score threshold and outputting are insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and output. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. When considered in combination, the claim does not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using computing components to perform the claimed storing, receiving, querying, applying, computing, outputting and inputting steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Using a computer for receiving, analyzing, and transmitting data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a computer. For the receiving, querying the database, applying a quality score threshold and outputting steps that was considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the database, memory, controller, user interface, processor, slider tool are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components (see specification at [0192]: general-purpose microprocessors). Micaelian (US Patent #6,714,929 B1) teaches that the use of “slider bars” for users to indicate the importance (weights) of certain criteria is well-understood in the art (Col. 8 lines 19-40). All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming”). None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communic’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Although literally invoking a non-transitory computer-readable memory, independent claim 20 remain only broadly and generally defined, with the claimed functionality paralleling that of method claim 1. As such, claim 20 is rejected for at least similar rationale as discussed above.
Dependent claims 2 and 21 recite compare the match scores of the qualified medical professional records. Dependent claims 3 and 22 recite, prioritize first and second quality measures; assign a value to the first and second quality measures; sum the values of the first and second quality measures; and assign a weight to the first and second quality measures based on the values assigned to each of the first and second quality measures and the sum of the values of the first and second quality measures. Dependent claims 4 and 23 recite, wherein a first selected medical professional record of the qualified medical professional records has the first and second quality measures and a value assigned to the first and second quality measures. Dependent claims 5 and 24 recite, multiply the first quality measure weight by the first quality measure value of the first selected medical professional record, thereby creating a first weighted quality measure value; multiply the second quality measure weight by the second quality measure value of the first selected medical professional record, thereby creating a second weighted quality measure value; and sum the first and second weighted quality measure values. Dependent claim 6 and 25 recite, wherein the defined threshold is a predefined range of the quality score. Dependent claims 7 and 26 recite wherein the defined threshold is a percentile ranking of the medical professional. Dependent claim 9 and 28 recite, wherein the quality measures comprise: an educational background of a medical professional, years of professional experience of the medical professional, and disciplinary actions against the medical professional. Dependent claims 10 and 29 recite display the qualified medical professional records in descending order according to values of the match scores for the set of qualified medical professional records.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-10 and 21-26 and 28-29 further narrow the abstract ideas as identified in claims 1 and 20 by reciting steps of computing match score and providing further definition of the quality measures. Considered individually and in combination, the dependent claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when viewed as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2A1/2A2/2B at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that, “Applicant's claimed invention recites an improvement to graphical user interfaces used to input a plurality of parameters used in a particular configuration of a computer system. As such, the claims are not directed to any of the three recognized areas of abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the USPTO's analytical framework for Section 101 patent eligibility. Moreover, regarding Step 2A, Prong 2 of the USPTO's analytical framework, Applicant's claimed invention recites a combination of graphical user interface features that, taken as a whole, define a practical application (an improved mode of inputting a plurality of required parameter values - within a variety of parameter-type-specific ranges - needed to operate the system) of any "alleged" abstract idea.”
However, the examiner is not persuaded. Applicant’s claimed invention seeks to advance the method at which a person searches for a medical professional by using criteria important to the person seeking the medical professional (paragraph [0005]) and not to improvements in graphical user interface inputs. The slider bar as claimed is merely a tool for a user to input data.
Applicant has also failed to particularly define functionality and features that improve a user interface capability of a system. The Applicant’s specification lacks any technological details for how such “an improved graphical user interface” is constructed, operated, or applied. An exemplary recital as to its operation is “The user may enter this information using a graphical user interface (GUI) 300, as shown in Figure 3. The user enters information regarding a specialty of a professional at an interface 302 and subspecialties or expertise relating to the specialty at interfaces 304 and 306 during the operation 202. In addition, the user enters information about his/herself at the interface 308” (paragraph [0035]). Examiner maintains that the claim amendments are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Baker et al (US 2006/0161456 A1): [0032] In preferred embodiments, the UI might also include presentation of those medical providers in an order responsive to the patient's stated preferences, responsive to rankings in the patients' preferred score domains, and responsive to possible additional criteria imposed by the patient. The UI might also provide the capabilities for the patient to obtain more detail about selected medical providers, or for the patient to compare multiple medical providers, both without the patient having to know anything about how those rankings are prepared, anything about medical specialties, or anything about what specific medical conditions the patient might have.
McClellan, Mark, and Douglas Staiger. "Comparing the quality of health care providers." Frontiers in Health Policy Research, Volume 3. MIT Press, 2000. 113-136: combines information from all the quality indicators available for a provider (e.g., from other years, other patients, or other indicators for the same patients) to estimate more accurately the provider's previous or expected quality. The approach also provides an empirical basis for comparing and combining alternative quality indicators, thereby enabling policy makers to choose among potential indicators, explore the potential bias in alternative measures, and increase the value of quality measures for assessing and improving care.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAAME BALLOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1359. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MAAME BALLOU
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/MAAME BALLOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights