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 .
Response to Amendment
The following Office action in response to communications received September 12, 2025. Claims 1, 6 and 11 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-12 are pending and addressed below.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims not sufficient to overcome the rejections set forth in the previous office action dated May 12, 2025.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Independent Claims 1, 6 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea of automating and customizing the process of medical note-taking and order placement based on observed user behavior and permissions
Independent claim 1 recites, “accessing the medical records; tracking user choices of the user and capturing medical notes, analyze data sets of user preferences and generate user profiles suitable for collecting or retrieving patient information based on user preferences and historic data entry or retrieval; wherein choices made may be tracked such that a user can inherit such choices as part of their preferences; determining one or more first user preferences by correlating a frequency of particular procedures to a particular diagnosis, in another embodiment, determining one or more second user preferences by correlating a frequency of particular procedures to patient demographics, wherein the user preferences comprises the first user preferences and the second user preferences; analyzing user preferences; generating user profiles suitable for collecting or retrieving patient information based on user preferences and historic data entry; providing one or more laboratory test to be performed on the patient; accessing a user catalog to determine whether the user has sufficient permissions to inherit the preferences of the second person, wherein the user catalog comprises set permission levels, wherein preferences of users are updated and accessed based on the set permission levels; if the user has sufficient permission to inherit the preferences of the second person, allowing, the user to inherit the preferences of the second person; if the user does not have sufficient permission, allowing, the user to inherit the user’s own preferences; creating medical notes, using either the preferences of the second person or the user’s own preferences and requesting the one or more laboratory test from a lab.”
Independent claim 6 recites, “accessing the medical records; and a user catalog, comprising user permissions and second person preferences, wherein user permissions and second person preferences are updated and accessed based on permission levels, accessing the user catalog to determine whether the user has sufficient permissions to inherit the preferences of the second person; determine one or more first user preferences by correlating a frequency of particular procedures to a particular diagnosis, in another embodiment, determine one or more second user preferences by correlating a frequency of particular procedures to patient demographics, wherein the user preferences comprises the first user preferences and the second user preferences; analyze the user preferences, generate user profiles suitable for collecting or retrieving patient information based on user preferences and historic data entry; if the user has sufficient permission to inherit the preferences of the second person, allowing, the user to inherit the preferences of the second person; if the user does not have sufficient permission allowing, the user to inherit the user’s own preferences; tracking user choices of the user and capturing medical notes, wherein choices made relative to the set may be tracked such that a user can inherit such choices as part of their preferences; and creating medical notes, the medical notes comprising one or more of a medicine prescribed for the patient and a laboratory test requested for the patient; and requesting one or both of filling the prescription for the medicine and the laboratory test for the patient in response to the creation of the medical notes.”
Independent claim 11 recites, “determine one or more first user preferences by correlating a frequency of particular procedures to a particular diagnosis, in another embodiment, determine one or more second user preferences by correlating a frequency of particular procedures to patient demographics, wherein the user preferences comprises the first user preferences and the second user preferences; analyze user preferences, generate user profiles suitable for collecting or retrieving patient information based on user preferences and historic data entry; determining whether the user has sufficient permissions to inherit the preferences of a second user having a second user profile; accessing a preference record for the user in response to a user profile displaying fields and a visual representation of a patient for data entry; tracking user choices of the user and capturing medical notes, wherein choices made relative to the set may be tracked such that a user can inherit such choices as part of their preferences or to generate impression data; displaying fields and a visual representation of a patient for data entry; displaying data input preferences determined based upon impression data obtained with regard to the user profile over time and the preference record; and updating one or more of the impression data and the preference record in response to selections for patient notes; receiving, one or more medications prescribed for the patient; and transmitting, one or more prescription requests for the one or more medications to a pharmacy”
The limitations of independent claims 1, 6 and 11, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of a “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity“ concepts performed by managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer medical records system using a user interface, graphical user interface, server, database, adaptive notes generation module, processors, adaptive learning algorithm” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by managing interactions between people. For example, but for the “computer medical records system” language, “tracking” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually tracking patient selections. Similarly, the creating medical notes, covers performance of the limitation by managing interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by managing interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of using a “computer medical records system using a user interface, graphical user interface, server, database, adaptive notes generation module, processors, adaptive learning algorithm” to perform all of the steps of independent claims 1, 6 and 11. The “computer medical records system using a user interface, graphical user interface, server, database, adaptive notes generation module, processors, adaptive learning algorithm” is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of executing computer-executable instructions for implementing the specified logical function(s)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 has additional limitations (i.e., computer medical records system using a graphical user interface, database, processors, adaptive learning algorithm, adaptive notes generation module). Claim 6 has additional limitations (i.e., graphical user interface, computer medical records system, server comprising one or more processors, an adaptive notes generation module, adaptive notes generation module, an adaptive learning algorithm). Claim 11 has additional limitations (i.e., processors, computer medical records system, graphical user interface, adaptive notes generation module and an adaptive learning algorithm). Looking to the specification, these components are described at a high level of generality (¶ 28; wherein the client can be a mobile device including, without limitation, desktop computers, laptop computers, network computers, tablets, smart phones). The use of a general-purpose computer, taken alone, does not impose any meaningful limitation on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, so it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Also, although the claims add “[storage]” steps, it is only considered as insignificant extrasolution activity. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as the courts have found in Parker v. Flook. Therefore, there are no limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12 include all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein. Although the dependent claims add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claims.
Claims 1-12 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks applicant argues:
Claim Rejections -35 USC $ 101
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Applicants respectfully disagree.
Specifically, on page 4 of the Office Action, the Office alleges that the "limitations of independent claims 1, 6 and 11, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of a "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity." The Office Action does not appear to provide any detail about what "abstract idea" the claims are allegedly directed to. Instead, the Office merely alleges that the claims are directed to "managing interactions between people."
As an initial matter, with regard to the claims argued as allegedly reciting patent-ineligible subject matter, the amendments to the claims have further clarified the patent-eligible and allowable inventions therein. Accordingly, as explained in more detail below, the pending claims are directed to innovative computer medical records system and related methods. Applicants note that the claims are not rejected based on any prior art. Accordingly, the claimed computer medical records system and related methods appear to be innovative based on the findings of the Office.
Independent claims 1, 6, and 11 recite, in part (as shown above in each respective claim) one or more of the following:
"an adaptive notes generation module and an adaptive learning algorithm"
"correlating a frequency of particular procedures to a particular diagnosis"
"creating medical notes, using the adaptive notes generation module"
"wherein the adaptive learning algorithm is configured to analyze data sets of user
preferences and generate user profiles suitable for collecting or retrieving patient information based on user preferences and historic data entry or retrieval using one or more graphical user interfaces of the set of graphical user interfaces, the computer medical records system comprising the generation module, the adaptive
learning algorithm, and a laboratory request software module;
" providing, using the adaptive note generation module, the laboratory request
software module with a request for one or more laboratory tests to be performed on
the patient;
""a laboratory request software module configured to electronically request a
laboratory test for a patient from a lab"
""a prescription software module configured to electronically submit a prescription
to a pharmacy for the patient; creating medical notes, using the adaptive notes generation software module, the medical notes comprising one or more of a medicine prescribed for the patient and a laboratory test requested for the patient"
""automatically electronically requesting one or both of the medicine and the
laboratory test for the patient in response to the creation of the medical notes."
""receiving, using the adaptive notes generation module, one or more medications
prescribed for the patient"
""providing, using the adaptive notes generation module, a prescription software
module with the one or more medications"
""electronically transmitting, using the prescription software module, one or more
prescription requests for the one or more medications to a pharmacy"
Applicants submit that it is clear appealable error to allege that the forgoing claim elements are Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" or "generic computer components." Computer medical records systems are complex software-based systems. The claimed computer medical records system and related method has the practical benefit of generating notes for a physician in an efficient and adaptive manner to save the physician's valuable time for patient care and diagnosis and not being tasked with administratively burdensome note creation. Implementing adaptive note generation and generating notes is not an abstract idea, but instead is an innovative approach that has the clear practical application to physicians’ practices by increasing the time physicians have for patient centric tasks and workflows. In addition, the features relating to automatically ordering laboratory tests from a lab and requesting a prescription from a pharmacy further improve patient outcomes and further reduces the burden on physicians and other members of their administrative staff.
Applicants submit that alleging that the claims are directed to a "method of organizing human activity" or a "mental process" overgeneralizes the recited invention and would "fail to account for the specific requirements of the claims" as emphasized with warning by the court in MCRO v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (Fed. Cir 2016). The claims recite a highly
specific, practical and targeted combination of data processing, which are non-abstract. Accordingly, the claims do not fall in the Office-enumerated category of "organizing human activities" and are therefore not abstract under prong one of Step 2A. The claims are per se not directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to prong two of Step 2A, even if the Examiner were to conclude the claims were properly classified as "organizing human activities", which is not admitted (and not correct), the presently presented claims are "integrated into a practical application of that exception" and thus are not abstract under prong two. Applicants submit that it is clear that the claims describe a novel approach to adaptively creating notes and other features that increase the time a physician has for patient treatment and diagnosis instead of administrative activities relating to generating medical notes. In addition, a person cannot perform the methods and systems claimed.
Further, as stated in the Office's Guidance, the purpose of prong two is to ensure that claims do not pre-empt all uses of the alleged abstract idea. As discussed above, the claims are specifically directed to an innovative computer medical records system and methods that include specific implementation details. Numerous other approaches could be used to create a computer medical records systems and related methods. Thus, Applicants claim, while novel and a technical improvement, does not in any sense monopolize what the Office alleges (somewhat ambiguously) the "abstract idea" to be.
The Office's guidelines have indicated that, although a claim as a whole recites organizing human activity, when the claim recites a combination of additional elements then the claim as a whole integrates an idea of organizing human activity into a practical application when the claim imposes a meaningful limit on it. Applicants’ express recitation of each of the elements recited in the claims including those quoted above meaningfully limits the independent claims. Like MCRO, in Applicant's claims it is not the simply use of the computer that improves the process, but rather specific implementation details that require specific software that operates in a specific manner.
Finally, Applicants note that the claimed invention is more than a mere well-understood, routine or conventional activity at least because the Office has not articulated any prior art rejections.
For the above reasons Applicants submit that the pending claims are not "abstract" and should not be rejected under section 101.
In response to argument (1), Examiner respectfully disagrees.
1. Clarification of the Examiner's Position on the Abstract Idea:
The Applicant argues the Office Action "does not appear to provide any detail about what 'abstract idea' the claims are allegedly directed to." The Office Action explicitly categorized the claims under the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas. As detailed in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, this category includes concepts like "managing relationships between people" and "commercial or legal interactions," such as forms of recordkeeping.
The claims are directed to the abstract idea of automating and customizing the process of medical note-taking and order placement based on observed user behavior and permissions. At its core, this is a process of (1) observing a user’s patterns (correlating procedures to diagnoses/demographics), (2) applying rules (permissions to inherit another’s preferences), and (3) automating administrative tasks (creating notes, sending lab/prescription requests). This is a method of organizing the professional activity of a healthcare provider, falling squarely within the identified judicial exception.
2. The Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea (Step 2A, Prong One):
The Applicant contends that the combination of "adaptive notes generation," "adaptive learning algorithm," and automated requesting modules transforms the nature of the claims. However, reciting these generic, non-technical software components to perform the abstract process does not change the focus of the claims.
The "Inventive Concept" is an Administrative One: The alleged innovation is in what is being automated and customized (medical notes and orders for efficiency), not in how the computing system achieves it in a technically inventive way. The claims describe a desired outcome—saving physician time on administrative tasks—implemented on generic computing hardware using conventional software modules (GUI, database, algorithm, communication modules). As stated in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., "the focus of the asserted claims is on the information itself," not on an improvement in computer functionality.
Distinguishing MCRO: The Applicant's reliance on MCRO is misplaced. In MCRO, the claims provided specific, concrete rules that improved computer-generated animation itself, dictating how the computer must perform its core function. Here, the rules (e.g., "correlate frequency," "check permissions," "inherit preferences") are high-level directives to achieve a business/administrative goal. The computer is merely used as a tool to execute them faster. The claims lack the "specific requirement" of a technical improvement to computing, which was central to the MCRO holding.
3. The Claims Do Not Integrate the Exception into a Practical Application (Step 2A, Prong Two):
The Applicant argues the claims are integrated into the practical application of "increasing physician time for patient care." While this is a beneficial result, it is an economic or field-of-use benefit, not a technological one that demonstrates integration.
For integration, the additional elements must impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception itself that ensures the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The recited elements here—"graphical user interface," "one or more processors," "adaptive learning algorithm," "software modules," "database," and "electronically transmitting"—are generic computer components performing their routine, conventional functions (collecting data, processing rules, communicating results). Per precedent such as BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., the mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract process more efficiently does not integrate that process into a practical application.
The claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of the computer medical records system itself (e.g., a new data structure that enhances processing speed, a novel encryption method for secure transmission, a unique user interface rendering technique). They use a conventional system to perform a new, but abstract, process.
4. The Claims Lack an Inventive Concept (Step 2B):
Even if analyzed under Step 2B, the claims do not recite an "inventive concept." The combination of elements amounts to "apply an abstract idea using a computer." The "adaptive learning algorithm" is claimed at a high level of result-oriented generality ("configured to analyze data sets... and generate user profiles"). It is a black box performing the abstract mental process of learning user patterns. The other components are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of electronic health records (EHR) systems. The fact that the Office has not yet issued a prior art rejection under §§ 102 or 103 does not, as a matter of law, prove that these computer functions are unconventional. The burden under § 101 is distinct.
In conclusion, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of automating and customizing medical record-keeping and order placement based on user behavior. The additional elements do not integrate this idea into a technological practical application, as they merely instruct the use of generic computer technology to perform the abstract process. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained. To overcome this rejection, Applicant must either amend the claims to clearly recite a technical improvement to computer functionality, such as a specific, non-conventional algorithm or data architecture that solves a computer-centric problem (e.g., reduces latency in note generation, provides a specific new security model for permission inheritance that prevents data corruption), or provide a persuasive technical analysis demonstrating that the claimed combination of elements, as a whole, modifies the operation of the computer medical records system in a novel and non-conventional way that goes beyond merely performing an old business practice on a computer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pub. No.: US 20060184394 A1 to Maughan; A system employs a prediction processor for predicting user demand for a graph in order to create and provide a graph with reduced response time upon user request. A patient medical data graphing system includes a repository for storing patient medical data and an acquisition processor. The acquisition processor acquires medical data concerning a particular patient and stores the acquired data in the repository. A data processor processes the acquired patient medical data derived from the repository to provide graph representative data for storage in a repository, in response to predetermined configuration information indicating a graph is to be pre-stored for the acquired patient medical data. A user interface processor provides data representing a display image including a pre-stored graph in response to user command.
Pub. No.: US 20070198432 A1 to Pitroda et al.; Provided herein are methods and systems for supporting secure electronic transactions, including those that support security at the domain, user and device level.
Pub. No.: US 20090198514 A1 to Rhodes; Paragraph [0059]: Shown in FIG. 2, Sessions List area 2 includes a list of prior data entries relating to treatment sessions of the patient prior to any current windows. FIG. 3 shows this in greater detail, with the lower portion of the window pane as including a list of sessions. Each session is a collection of information about a particular patient visit. The selection of a particular session results in the population of the other window panes of Main UI 104. This allows the practitioner/user to view in one screen a summary of the relevant patient data available electronically, and the practitioner/user may drill down any of the other window panes (as described in greater detail below) to obtain the full data from any of these summaries. Further, the practitioner/user may initiate a new session. When a new session is initiated, the data record or object associated with the new session inherits the information from the immediately prior session, allowing the practitioner/user to avoid having to enter duplicative data, so that only the entry of new data and/or the deletion of old data is required. In the exemplary embodiment, only session information in the current session may be edited and prior session information is available in read-only mode. However, it is possible to configure the software to provide permission-based editing features, so that a user and/or super-user may be able to modify certain prior session data.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD B WINSTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-7780. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1030 to 1830.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773. 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.
/E.B.W/ Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683