DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a non-final office action on the merits in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 30 April 2025 and the request for continued examination filed on 27 May 2025.
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 20 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9-16, and 18-20 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 April 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “generating an alert … when the universal charting data element selected is not compliant with the relevant regulation.” The limitation appears to include a typographical error associated with pluralization, and should instead recite “the universal charting data elements selected are”. Claims 10 and 20 are similarly objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims not listed below are rejected for dependency.
Amended claim 1 recites the non-original limitation “controlling, by the cloud-based integrated charting system, one or more of the client devices to display a subset of the primary charting element, the secondary charting element, or the third charting element, wherein the subset is based at least in part on a type of department which submitted the selections to the cloud-based integrated charting system.” Applicant’s remarks identify [0010], [0041]-[0044] and [0053] as support for the amendments at large. None of Applicant’s identified disclosures reference a “department”. After a review of the originally filed disclosure, [0047] and [0048] appear to be the disclosures most relevant to the identified limitation.
[0047] FIG. 4 is an illustrative screen display of a medical chart built by a client in a critical care department for vital signs. As illustrated in FIG. 4, the client has chosen to only display certain vital sign requests in the critical care vital sign chart form. For example, the built chart will request that a critical care provider document a skin body temperature (I.A.5.), heart rhythm and strength of pulse for pulse rate (I.B.1.2), monitor respiration (I.C.1) and resting blood pressure (I.D.1). The client builder has chosen to hide vital signs of oral, rectal, axillary and ear body temperature (I.A.1- 4) as the critical care department of the client only ever takes a skin body temperature in critical care. This makes the charting display presented to the clinician more manageable, more efficient and takes up less real estate room as only one of the body temperature (e.g., skin) is selectable for charting instead of having to find the proper body temperature to chart from a list of five types.
[0048] FIG. 5 is an illustrative screen display of a medical chart built by a client in a physical therapy department for vital signs. As illustrated in FIG. 5, the client has chosen to only display certain vital sign requests in the physical therapy vital sign chart. Unlike critical care environment, the physical therapy department is only going to request chart documentation of pulse rate (I.B.1-2) and blood pressure (I.D.4.a-b) when seeing a patient. The physical therapy does not typically take body temperature and respiration rates for patients. Again, this makes the charting display presented to the physical therapy clinician more manageable, more efficient and takes up less real estate room as only pulse rate and blood pressure are displayed for the clinician to chart and document.
The disclosures at [0047] and [0048] describe a situation where a chart builder, a human operator of the system, from a particular department selects information to be included in a chart. These disclosures do not suggest or support a general step of displaying charting elements according to a department that inputted them. The limitation identified above only requires the display of subset of charting elements, where the subset is based on a type of department that submitted selections to the cloud. Thus this limitation encompasses a claim scope where a user makes selections, and a subset is displayed based on the type of department the user is from. Such scope is not supported by the originally filed disclosure, which as noted before, exclusively contemplates a user associated with a type of department selecting information to be included in a chart. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize these disclosures as supporting the identified limitation. The remainder of the originally filed disclosure similarly fails to support the identified limitation.
Because the claims include a non-original limitation that is not supported by the originally filed disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize applicant as possessing the claimed invention. Therefore the claim is rejected under the written description requirement. Claims 10 and 20 are similarly rejected.
Amended claim 1 recites the non-original limitation: “automatically generating, in the cloud-based integrated charting system, based at least in part on the relevant regulation and the subset, a hard-coded medical charting model for the medical condition by utilizing a machine learning model on the universal medical charting data elements selected to display and to hide by the plurality of client devices.” Applicant’s remarks identify [0010], [0041]-[0044] and [0053] as support for the amendments at large.
[0010] As medical charting forms are created, the data is stored in the client database and transmitted to the medical charting build tool for analysis and development of model medical charting forms. In embodiments, the user can build medical charting forms based on patient condition, provider and location. These modifications can be learned by the cloud-based integrated charting system, utilizing machine learning techniques.
[0041] System 200 utilizes documentation rules engine 235 includes conditionality rules are applied to deploy best medical charting practices among clients. Documentation rules 236 include conditional rules applied when utilizing the medical charting build tool 205 to build medical charting forms. The documentation rules 236 include regulatory rules - for example every region has different Medicaid, Medicare, bundle payments and MACRA and behavioral health requirements so a client can build out medical charting forms for what is needed to their region. Should a client build a medical charting form that excludes important regulatory requirements, the documentation rules engine alerts the builder that medical chart built is not compliant with federal, state or county regulations. In addition to applying regulatory logic to during client build, meaningful use rules and requirements by the client institution can also be applied to the chart build notifying the client that meaningful use requirements are missing in the medical chart build. The client builder then adds the missing data elements to satisfy the conditionality rules.
[0042] System 200 is deployed in a cloud environment so that best medical charting practices can be tracked by tracking module 245 of the cloud-based integrated charting system 200. The tracking module 245 curates main use cases, hard codes the cases with hard-coded medical charting elements. Additionally, the application tracks when a client copies content and applies elsewhere within the build.
[0043] Tracking module 245 brings back the best of medical chart build to the universal charting data elements database 230. The tracking module includes type of charting based on condition, provider and/or location and client domain specific charting preference builds. The medical chart builds can be utilized by the system 200 to assist in chart building and deploying for other clients. System 200 enable the provider to create and curate various model charting that can be reconciled with the client domain specific needs. For example, a client operating in the same or similar location as another client who has already built a medical chart for that location may be able to utilize the medical chart build developed by the client in the same or similar location. The client utilizing the other client's medical chart build may access the charting models and customize to his or her specific needs.
[0044] Furthermore, tracking module 245 can track client changes and additions to medical chart building. Although, these changes and additions will not be added to the universal charting data elements 230 when made by the client, they are tracked by the tracking module 245 and can be used for model chart building and AI learning from changes and additions during medical chart building.
[0053] The client builder then selects the data element to be added in order to satisfy the conditionality rule at step 630 and it is added to the chart build form. When the chart build satisfies the conditionality rules, the chart is built at step 635. When the clinician is charting for a patient based on the specified condition, location or provider, the client chart build is displayed and the user enters the appropriate values for the charting data elements. At step 640, the system 200 receives, store the client chart build form and associated conditions, location and provider for use with other clients and machine learning.
Examiner notes that the above references include every reference to machine learning within the present disclosure ([0010], [0044], and [0053]).
As of the priority date of the claimed invention (31 December 2018), machine learning was a burgeoning field of technology. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider it a panacea whose invocation supported any desired functionality. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect some details of implementation in claiming “automatically generating, in the cloud-based integrated charting system, based at least in part on the relevant regulation and the subset, a hard-coded medical charting model for the medical condition by utilizing a machine learning model on the universal medical charting data elements selected.” None of Applicant’s identified disclosures provide any details of implementation. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize these disclosures as supporting the identified limitation.
More specifically, the identified disclosures do not even appear to contemplate the claimed functionally. The disclosures at [0041]-[0043] do not appear to discuss machine learning. The disclosure at [0010] generally states that “modifications can be learned … utilizing machine learning techniques”. The disclosure at [0044] only generally states that chart modifications “can be used for model chart building and AI learning.” The disclosure at [0053] only generally states that parameters can be stored “for use with other clients and machine learning.” These disclosures all vaguely associate machine learning with collected user modifications, changes, and selections. However none of these disclosures actually suggest, teach, indicate, or contemplate that machine learning is used to “generate” a chart model, much less “utilizing a machine learning model on the universal medical charting data elements selected.” Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the identified disclosures to support the limitation on even a conceptual level. The remainder of the originally filed disclosure similarly fails to support the identified limitation.
Because the claims include a non-original limitation that is not supported by the originally filed disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize applicant as possessing the claimed invention. Therefore the claim is rejected under the written description requirement. Claims 10 and 20 are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims not listed below are rejected for dependency.
Claim 1 recites “adding the missing requirement to the hard-coded medical charting model.” The disclosure does not define the term “hard-coded” but states at [0038] “The universal charting data elements 230 includes medical charting data elements that are hard-coded to cloud-based integrated charting system 200 and cannot be changed during use by a client of the medical charting build tool 205”, which conforms with the ordinary meaning of the term, referring to something that is fixed in a program such that it cannot be altered without modifying the program’s code. However, the limitation requiring the addition (i.e., modification) to the hard-coded model conflicts with the ordinary meaning of the term as well as the specification’s suggestion. With the meaning of “hard-coded” in doubt, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the boundaries of the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. Claims 10 and 20 are similarly rejected.
Claim 2 recites “a chart for use by the clinician based on a patient’s location.” The claim does not include antecedent basis for a clinician. The lack of antecedent basis would make the scope of the claim unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art. In particular, it would not be clear what clinician is referenced by the limitation, rendering the claim indefinite. Claims 3, 11, 14, and 16 are similarly rejected.
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 1-3, 5, 9-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20, which is representative of claims 1 and 10, recites: a c[s] [s] of the primary charting element, the secondary charting element, or the third charting element, wherein the subset is based at least in part on a type of department which submitted the selections [s] .
The preceding recitations of the claims have had strikethrough marks applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea. The remaining limitations describe instructions to generate, manage, and provide regulation compliant and tailored medical charts to clients, which falls within the managing personal behavior or interactions between sub-grouping of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. As such, the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of one or more computer storage media. Claim 10 recites the additional element of a processor and a computer storage medium. Claim 20 describes the method as computer-implemented. The claims further recite the additional element of a cloud-based integrated charting system which implements parts of the abstract idea. These additional elements are all recited at an extremely high level of generality, and are interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims further recite operations completed utilizing a machine learning model and training the machine learning model. At the level of generality with which they are claimed, these limitations amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a computing device. As previously noted, such limitations do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. As such, this additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of a data repository accessible by devices. This additional element does not reflect any improvement to any technology or technical field. Additionally, this additional element does not implement the judicial exception with or using a particular machine. Further, this additional element does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article. Finally, this additional element does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way. Instead, the incorporation of data storage accessible to remote devices retrieving data only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of receiving data from the devices. This additional element does not reflect any improvement to any technology or technical field. Additionally, this additional element does not implement the judicial exception with or using a particular machine. Further, this additional element does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article. Finally, this additional element does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way. Instead, the incorporation of receiving user data from remote devices retrieving data only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element controlling a device to display information. This additional element does not reflect any improvement to any technology or technical field. Additionally, this additional element does not implement the judicial exception with or using a particular machine. Further, this additional element does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article. Finally, this additional element does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way. Instead, the incorporation of causing a remote device to display information only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of sending information to a device. This additional element does not reflect any improvement to any technology or technical field. Additionally, this additional element does not implement the judicial exception with or using a particular machine. Further, this additional element does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article. Finally, this additional element does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way. Instead, the incorporation of sending data to a remote device only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of monitoring the client device to determine if the client device has copied content; determining that the client device has applied the copied content to at least a portion of the hard-coded medical charting model. This additional element does not reflect any improvement to any technology or technical field. Additionally, this additional element does not implement the judicial exception with or using a particular machine. Further, this additional element does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article. Finally, this additional element does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way. Instead, the incorporation of cut-and-paste functionality only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of a computing device. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no further additional elements. When considered consider the combination of 1) implementing the abstract idea with a computing device, 2) data storage accessible to devices, 3) receiving data from devices, 4), control a device to display information, 5) sending information to a device, and 6) cut and paste functionality, the combination only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims further recite the additional element of a data repository accessible by devices. Bucher (US 2004/0039829 A1) demonstrates (“conventional remote data storage” See at least [0032]) that such functionality was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. Further, per MPEP 2106.05(d), retrieving information in memory has been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functionality. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims further recite the additional element of receiving data from the devices. Sun et al. (US 2002/0143994 A1) demonstrates (“the interface layer 450 will receive a message from a remote user using conventional techniques” See at least [0030]) that such functionality was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. Further, per MPEP 2106.05(d), receiving data over a network has been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functionality. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims further recite the additional element controlling a device to display information. Banerjee et al. (US 2002/0107884 A1) demonstrates (“the received Web page is
displayed in the conventional manner” See at least [0028]) that such functionality was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims further recite the additional element of sending information to a device. Uemura et al. (US 2001/0040893 A1) demonstrates (“conventional servers, such as the WWW server send data to the client” See at least [0009]) that such functionality was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. Further, per MPEP 2106.05(d), transmitting data over a network has been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functionality. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims further recite the additional element of monitoring the client device to determine if the client device has copied content; determining that the client device has applied the copied content to at least a portion of the hard-coded medical charting model. Shelly (US 2003/0217330 A1) demonstrates (“conventional editing features are supported, including cut, copy, paste” [0061]) that such functionality was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
There are no further additional elements. When considered consider the combination of 1) implementing the abstract idea with a computing device, 2) data storage accessible to devices, 3) receiving data from devices, 4), control a device to display information, 5) sending information to a device, and 5) cut and paste functionality, the combination only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considered individually and as a combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 11-16, 18, and 19 further describes the abstract idea set forth by the independent claims. Thus these claims are determined to recite an abstract idea, albeit a narrowed one. These claims do not recite any further additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application for reasons equivalent to those explained above. Therefore these claims continue to be directed to an abstract idea. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea for reasons equivalent to those explained above. Thus as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 9-16, and 18-20:
As can be seen in Table 1, the amended claim 1 has additional elements (multiple, in some cases) that are aligned with each and every identified “additional element” in claim 1 of Example 42.
The claims are directed towards at least one specific improvement in an universal adaptive medical graphical user interfaces for selectively displaying and/or hiding hierarchical charting elements irrespective of a hospital or clinics location.
Charting elements included in the model may be selectively displayed based on conditions such as regulatory requirements, including federal, state, or country regulation, and moreover, if the charting elements are determined to be missing a requirement, the method involves adding the missing requirement into the model.
This improvement provides at least one technical solution to the problem of static and inflexible charts with hundreds to thousands of sections with information.
This improvement also provide technical solutions to similar problems as presented in paragraphs [0004] and [0005] of the specification such as situations when a patient changes location that have different regulatory requirements which affect which charting elements to display for the model.
Conventional charting models includes thousands of static sections for medical departments including emergency departments, ambulatory departments, etc. Displaying these static section is not feasible across all institutions that a patient may visit, and the static sections may not be universally related.
Amended claim 1 remedies these conventional deficiencies by providing a cloud-based integrated charting accessible by a plurality of clients that offers a non-generic, significant technological improvement to universal charting by limiting charting elements based on federal, state, or county regulations in addition to selections from the client of the plurality of clients, provides meaningful limits by way of addressing relevant regulations imposing restrictions on what the model may display and/or hide.
By reducing the amount of sections displayed the charting model, a reduction in computer memory, processing power, and required screen space is achieved and thus a user experience by a care provider and/or patients is significantly improved.
Applicant submits that the inventive concept demonstrated in amended claim 1 is not a well-known concept, routine, or conventional activity in the medical field and amounts to significantly more. … Utilizing the universal medical charting model, as described in amended claim 1, regardless of location of the care provider and/or patient demonstrates a non-conventional/non-generic arrangement by enabling care providers and patients who utilize the highly adaptive charting model regardless of model to efficiently retrieve relevant information.
In conventional art, as stated in the background of the originally filed specification in paragraphs [0004] and [0005], displaying charting elements varies based on individual departments and may have different requirements which makes conventional static charting models inflexible and overcrowded with thousands of static sections.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 30 April 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that each elements of Example 42, Claim 1 and of instant Claim 1 “align”. In particular, the claims do not have a reasonable analog to “converting, by a content server, the non-standardized updated information into the standardized format.” The feature applicant considers to correspond to that limitation merely describes the storage of information in a hierarchical structure. Further, the claims do not appear to contain a technical improvement analogous to that of example 42.
Applicant’s argument asserts that there is “at least one specific improvement in an universal adaptive medical graphical user interfaces for selectively displaying and/or hiding hierarchical charting elements irrespective of a hospital or clinics location”, but it is not apparent what the improvement is. Displaying and/or hiding elements without regard to device display location does not appear to be a technical problem. Examiner notes that specifically identifying the technical improvement may be conducive to advancing prosecution.
Examiner notes that what embodiments of the claimed invention “may” do does not influence subject matter eligibility. Further, the claims do not appear to require that charting elements “be selectively displayed based on conditions such as regulatory requirements.” The present claims describe determining whether selections conform with regulations and issuing an alert if not, but this is not selective display based on conditions. Further, the claims recite generating a “hard-coded medical charting model” “based at least in part” regulations, but this is not a selective display based on conditions.
Applicant’s described technical problem appears to be that existing charts include too much information. This does not appear to be a technical problem. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), tailoring information and providing it to a use is an abstract idea, and the use of software to implement such functionality is not eligible.
Again, tailoring information according to location is an abstract idea, and the use of software to implement such functionality is not eligible. In the decision Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, tailoring content based on the viewer’s location is specifically called out as an fundamental practice long prevalent.
It is unclear why Applicant asserts “Displaying these static sections is not feasible across all institutions that a patient may visit.” Different institutions did and do use different charts. If Applicant means to argue that different charts cannot be displayed through a computer at different institutions, such an argument is undermined by the billions of different pages which are available through every internet enabled computer.
The features associated with determining, altering, and notifying of regulatory compliance issues are considered part of the abstract idea, and as such are not “additional elements” which may integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, Examiner notes that using client selections of elements to include a chart cannot reasonable be considered a meaningful limitation on the generation, management, and provision of medical charts.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), arranging information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists users in processing information more quickly is not sufficient to qualify as an improvement to computer-functionality. Further, Applicant’s argument that handling less information causing reductions in power and processing requirements conflicts with many software eligibility decisions, as such an argument would render ineligible many cases labeled by the courts as eligible.
It is not clear what “inventive concept” is referenced by applicant. Examiner notes that specifically articulating the inventive concept may be conducive to advancing prosecution. Further, Applicant’s argument here appears largely untethered to the claims. Elements relied upon such as “regardless of location of the care provider and/or patient” do not appear to reference any claim limitations and more specifically do not seem to relate to the additional elements of the claims.
Examiner notes that the specification does not reference “conventional charting models.” A search of the prior art finds no references using the phase “charting model” in the field of medical charting other than the publication of Applicant’s application. However, assuming that there do exist charts with too much information, excluding information from such charts cannot reasonably be considered a technical solution.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 112(a) Rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9-16, and 18-20: Applicant has removed the limitations without prejudice.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's amendments filed 30 April 2025 have been fully considered and they resolve the prior 112(a) rejection(s). The prior rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9-16, and 18-20 under 112(a) is/are withdrawn.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 of the prior office action dated 12 March 2025.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm EST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2025-09-12