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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
In light of the amendments, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the amendments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 06/02/2025, the following has occurred: claims 1 and 3-4 have been amended; claims 2 and 5-10 remain unchanged; claims 11-20 have been canceled; and no new claims have been added.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 09/30/2015
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections:
Applicant amended the claims to overcome the previous 112(b) claim rejections. Examiner withdraws these rejections.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Step 2A
The claimed invention is a technical improvement to the management systems for health care data
Applicant highlights the specification at paragraph [0007] where it is stated that there is no centralized mechanism by which data entered by health care staff can be checked for completeness and validity. Additionally, Applicant points to paragraphs in the specification and states that there are disparities in record keeping which are being addressed by this invention. Examiner however respectfully disagrees that these claims reflect a technical improvement by creating a centralized mechanism to check for completeness and validity. The implementation of a computer to check for certain aspects within data (including completeness) does not preclude this check from being performed by humans. A determination of a metric for a particular set of data can be seen as a mathematical concept, and that check being performed by a computer can be viewed as taking an abstract concept and “applying it” with generic computing components.
The data being standardized before the completeness is determined in the way claimed does not reflect a technical improvement, nor a practical application. Segments of the data transformation steps of the present invention have been grouped as part of an abstract idea. These limitations are not claimed in a manner which would make them additional elements which provide an improvement to a technological field.
The claimed invention effects a transformation from one form to another
Applicant highlights the transformation steps and their criticality towards assessing completeness and reliability of health care records. Examiner however directs Applicant to the explanation above as the claims do not include additional elements when it comes to the data transformation steps of the present claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant draws comparisons between Example 42 and the present claims, however Examiner respectfully disagrees that the limitations of the present claims are similar to those of this Example. As stated above, the data transformation is dissimilar in that the present transformation is considered as part of the abstract idea.
The claimed invention applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Applicant states that the claims are more than a mere effort to monopolize the judicial exception in a meaningful way that significantly transcends merely linking this exception to a particular technological environment. Applicant further states that the transformation of data in the present claims is representative of the above statement.
Step 2B
Applicant states that the plain reading of the limitations in claim 1 recite significantly more than organizing human activity and mathematical concepts. Examiner however respectfully disagrees as the claims do not include additional elements that, when integrated into the abstract idea, form significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant further points the lack of an art rejection as support as to why the limitations of the claims are not well-understood, routine, or conventional (WURC). Applicant also points towards BASCOM to support why the additional elements in combination amounted to significantly more. Examiner however respectfully disagrees that this is reasonable support as the claims may not have a rejection for art but may contain entirely abstract limitations without any additional elements. In this scenario, the claims would still recite an abstract idea. In the present claims, there is an abstract idea with some additional elements. These additional elements were directed towards “apply it” and a WURC element. The element which was deemed well-known is indeed well-known as displaying information using a display is extra-solution/post-solution activity. Examiner cited a court case below in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection section to prove why this element was well-known.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant amended the claims to overcome the previous 103 claim rejections. Examiner withdraws these rejections.
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 1-10 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. Claims 1-10 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-10 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a method for quantitatively assessing the recordation of health care patient data from native qualitative data stored in disparate databases, the method comprising the steps of: 1) accessing a plurality of a) digital databases using b) one or more processors, wherein each database stores health care patient record data in a native format at each healthcare facility, 2) transforming native health care patient record data of a first patient stored in a first database, using the one or more processors, to a standardized format in which the native health care patient record data for the first patient is converted into a first plurality of parsed data fields, 3) transforming native health care patient record data of a second patient stored in a second database, using the one or more processors, to the standardized format in which the native health care patient record data for the second patient is converted into a second plurality of parsed data fields, 4) assigning, by the one or more processors, a relative importance weight score to each of the plurality of data fields for each field in the first plurality of parsed data fields and each field in the second plurality of parsed data fields, wherein the relative importance weight score is a numerical value corresponding to the relative importance of each of the plurality of data fields, 5) generating, by the one or more processors, a numerical record strength score of the health care record of the first patient and the second patient, thereby converting the health care record of the first patient and the second patient from qualitative data to a numerical data set, the record strength determined based on the following formula: (the equation in claim 1) wherein RSS is the record strength score which is a total strength of completeness for the health care record of the first patient and the second patient constrained from 0 to 100%; IWi is the importance weight of ith data field; and Xj is a binary completeness variable for ith data field wherein 1 represents a complete data field and 0 represents an incomplete data field, and 6) displaying on c) a graphic user interface the numerical record strength score of the health care record of the first patient and the second patient, thereby conveying a quantitative, comparative analysis of a completeness of the health care record of the first patient and the second patient.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) accessing a plurality of databases (which may be stored information mentally or on a piece of paper), wherein each database stores health care patient record data in a native format at each healthcare facility, 2) transforming native health care patient record data of a first patient stored in a first database to a standardized format in which the native health care patient record data for the first patient is converted into a first plurality of parsed data fields, 3) transforming native health care patient record data of a second patient stored in a second database to the standardized format in which the native health care patient record data for the second patient is converted into a second plurality of parsed data fields, and 6) displaying the numerical record strength score of the health care record of the first patient and the second patient, thereby conveying a quantitative, comparative analysis of a completeness of the health care record of the first patient and the second patient. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how an individual can score a data record.
Claim 1 also recites, in part, performing the steps of 4) assigning a relative importance weight score to each of the plurality of data fields for each field in the first plurality of parsed data fields and each field in the second plurality of parsed data fields, wherein the relative importance weight score is a numerical value corresponding to the relative importance of each of the plurality of data fields, 5) generating a numerical record strength score of the health care record of the first patient and the second patient, thereby converting the health care record of the first patient and the second patient from qualitative data to a numerical data set, the record strength determined based on the following formula: (the equation in claim 1) wherein RSS is the record strength score which is a total strength of completeness for the health care record of the first patient and the second patient constrained from 0 to 100%; IWi is the importance weight of ith data field; and Xj is a binary completeness variable for ith data field wherein 1 represents a complete data field and 0 represents an incomplete data field, and 6) displaying the numerical record strength score of the health care record of the first patient and the second patient, thereby conveying a quantitative, comparative analysis of a completeness of the health care record of the first patient and the second patient. These steps correspond to Mathematical Concepts.
Going forward, the above abstract concepts of claim 1 will be considered as a single abstract idea.
Depending claims 2-10 include all of the limitations of claim 1, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claim 3 adds the additional step of “generating, by the processor, a patient database score for the first or second database, wherein the patient database score is an average of record strength scores of all patient health care records in a corresponding database; wherein the patient database score indicates a percentage of all patient health care records in a database that contains important native health care patient record data”; claim 5 adds the additional step of “generating, by the processor, a patient subgroup score based on the average of record strength scores of all patient health care records in a subgroup based on a subpopulation condition; wherein the patient subgroup score indicates a percentage of all patient health care records in the subgroup that contains important native health care patient record data”; claim 7 adds the additional step of “comparing the strength of a selected data field across two or more databases using a data field completeness score based on an average of binary completeness variables of the selected data field in each database; wherein the data field completeness score indicates a percentage of all the selected data fields in each database that are complete”; and claim 9 adds the additional step of “comparing the strength of a selected data field for a subgroup across two or more databases using a data field completeness score based on an average of binary completeness variables of the selected data field in each database; wherein the data field completeness score indicates a percentage of all the selected data fields in each subgroup of each database that are complete”. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 2-10 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) digital databases, b) one or more processors, and c) a graphic user interface to perform the claimed steps.
The a) digital databases and b) one or more processors in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification for a lack of description of anything but generic components, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The c) graphic user interface in these steps adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do 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 a) digital databases, b) one or more processors, and c) a graphic user interface to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity) and mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity or certain mathematical steps. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The a) digital databases and b) one or more processors in the claims are used to display a record strength score, thus these computing components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Lastly, the c) graphic user interface in these steps add insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives record strength score data, and transmits the data to a GUI over a network, for example the Internet.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components or insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-10 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
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 Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684