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 January 26, 2026. Claims 1-20, 22-25 and 27-35 have been amended. Claim 36 has been added. Therefore, claims 1-36 are pending and addressed below.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome both of the 35 USC § 112 rejections set forth in the previous office action dated November 6, 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 1-36 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 Claim(s) 1, 10 and 20 are directed to a methods, systems, and media for seamless transmission of identification-protected clinical images. With minimal input, a sanitized message with patient-specific images is swiftly created and sent for review. This system adeptly manages replies, associating them with specific patients and visits using unique indexers to safeguard patient data and autonomously extracts clinical findings from responses and notifies the relevant clinician corresponding to the reviewed images.
Claim 1 recites “generating a mapping database, wherein generating the mapping database comprises storing associations between unique-identifier strings and database records; accessing, an input element initiating a request to transmit a communication associated with a particular database record (PDR);in response to the request, automatically performing, without requiring a further input element initiating the request: (a) generating a unique identifier string of data (UISOD), for the PDR, for performing a targeted access into the mapping database; (b) assigning the UISOD to the PDR at least by: i) generating an association between the UISOD and the PDR; and (ii) modifying the mapping database, wherein modifying the mapping database comprises: storing the association between the UISOD and the PDR;(c) creating, a first communication, wherein creating the first communication comprises:(i) accessing the PDR;(ii) scrubbing information associated with the PDR to produce scrubbed data; and (iii) constructing the first communication based on the UISOD and based on the scrubbed data,(iv) wherein the scrubbed data is configured for presentation, and wherein the UISOD and the scrubbed data are free of (PIl); and (d) transmitting, the first communication including the UISOD and the scrubbed data, without any PIl; subsequent to transmitting the first communication, receiving a second communication that indicates the UISOD; conducting a first search, in a database corresponding to the mapping database, for the UISOD in response to receiving the second communication; determining, based on conducting the first search, that the UISOD is assigned to the PDR in the database; and conducting a second search, in the database, for a record that corresponds to the PDR.”
Claim 10 recites “generating a mapping database, wherein generating the mapping database comprises storing associations between unique-identifier strings and database records; accessing, an input element initiating a request to transmit a communication associated with a particular database record (PDR);in response to the request, automatically performing, without requiring a further input element initiating the request: (a) generating a unique identifier string of data (UISOD), for the PDR, for performing a targeted access into the mapping database; (b) assigning the UISOD to the PDR at least by: i) generating an association between the UISOD and the PDR; and (ii) modifying the mapping database, wherein modifying the mapping database comprises: storing the association between the UISOD and the PDR;(c) creating, a first communication, wherein creating the first communication comprises:(i) accessing the PDR;(ii) scrubbing information associated with the PDR to produce scrubbed data; and (iii) constructing the first communication based on the UISOD and based on the scrubbed data,(iv) wherein the scrubbed data is configured for presentation, and wherein the UISOD and the scrubbed data are free of (PIl); and (d) transmitting, the first communication including the UISOD and the scrubbed data, without any PIl; subsequent to transmitting the first communication, receiving a second communication that indicates the UISOD; conducting a first search, in a database corresponding to the mapping database, for the UISOD in response to receiving the second communication; determining, based on conducting the first search, that the UISOD is assigned to the PDR in the database; and conducting a second search, in the database, for a record that corresponds to the PDR.”
Claim 20 recites “generating a mapping database, wherein generating the mapping database comprises storing associations between unique-identifier strings and database records; accessing, an input element initiating a request to transmit a communication associated with a particular database record (PDR);in response to the request, automatically performing, without requiring a further input element initiating the request: (a) generating a unique identifier string of data (UISOD), for the PDR, for performing a targeted access into the mapping database; (b) assigning the UISOD to the PDR at least by: i) generating an association between the UISOD and the PDR; and (ii) modifying the mapping database, wherein modifying the mapping database comprises: storing the association between the UISOD and the PDR;(c) creating, a first communication, wherein creating the first communication comprises:(i) accessing the PDR;(ii) scrubbing information associated with the PDR to produce scrubbed data; and (iii) constructing the first communication based on the UISOD and based on the scrubbed data,(iv) wherein the scrubbed data is configured for presentation, and wherein the UISOD and the scrubbed data are free of (PIl); and (d) transmitting, the first communication including the UISOD and the scrubbed data, without any PIl; subsequent to transmitting the first communication, receiving a second communication that indicates the UISOD; conducting a first search, in a database corresponding to the mapping database, for the UISOD in response to receiving the second communication; determining, based on conducting the first search, that the UISOD is assigned to the PDR in the database; and conducting a second search, in the database, for a record that corresponds to the PDR.”
The limitations of Claims 1, 10 and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of a Mental Process which are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a sender service of a centralized computing device that is integrated into a healthcare records system, first device, receiving device, computer storage device, sender service, processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media” language, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually retrieving a request to communicate/transmit/send information. Similarly, generating and communicate/transmit/send of said requested information, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind performance of the limitation by managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” 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 “a sender service of a centralized computing device that is integrated into a healthcare records system, first device, receiving device, computer storage device, sender service, processor” steps. The “a sender service of a centralized computing device that is integrated into a healthcare records system, first device, receiving device, computer storage device, sender service, processor” 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., hardware processor, sender service of a centralized computing device that is integrated into a healthcare records system, first device, receiving device, computer storage device, sender service, processor). Claim 10 has additional limitations (i.e., hardware processor, sender service of a centralized computing device that is integrated into a healthcare records system, first device, receiving device, computer storage device, sender service, processor). Claim 20 has additional limitations (i.e., hardware processor, sender service of a centralized computing device that is integrated into a healthcare records system, first device, receiving device, computer storage device, sender service). Looking to the specification, these components are described at a high level of generality (¶ 22; Beginning with FIG. 1, a system environment 100 is provided. The system environment 100 can include a centralized computing device 102, a sender service 104, a receiver service 106, an internal computing device 108, a database 110, a network 112, and one or more external computing devices, such as a mobile telephone 114, a tablet device 116, and a laptop computing device 118, for example. In aspects, the centralized computing device 102 is a computing device having a processor and a memory, wherein the processor executes computer- executable instructions in the memory. For example, the centralized computing device 102 can be a physical server, a virtual server, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a cart-type medical device, a workstation computing device, or any other type of computing device as described with reference to FIG. 8.). 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.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-9, 11-19 and 21-36). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more’ than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element/function utilized to facilitate the abstract idea. Accordingly, none of the current claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology). These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of “Mental Process,” 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.
Subject Matter Eligible of Prior Art
Claims 1-36 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Examiner notates below the reasons why the claims overcome the prior art. The limitations most likely to distinguish over the cited combination of Mathison, Fuhrmann, and Rosenberg are:
(1) generating a unique identifier string of data (UISOD) for a particular database record (PDR) in response to a transmission request and assigning the UISOD to the PDR by modifying a mapping database to store the association between the UISOD and the PDR;
(2) constructing a first electronic communication based on the UISOD and scrubbed data, wherein both the UISOD and the scrubbed data are free of personally identifiable information (PII);
(3) transmitting the first electronic communication including the UISOD and scrubbed data without any PII and
(4) subsequent to transmitting, receiving a second electronic communication indicating the UISOD, conducting a first search in the mapping database for the UISOD to determine that the UISOD is assigned to the PDR, and then conducting a second search in the electronic database for the electronic record corresponding to the PDR.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks applicant argues:
(1) Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to argument (1), Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments and the amended claims but maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to a judicial exception because it recites an abstract idea falling within two recognized groupings: (1) certain methods of organizing human activity and (2) mental processes. The claim is primarily directed to managing access to and exchange of information through the assignment of a unique identifier to a particular data record, removal of sensitive information, transmission of sanitized data, and subsequent retrieval of the associated record using the identifier. These operations constitute a data governance and access-control workflow that regulates how information is shared and re-associated, which is a form of organizing human activity implemented on a computer. Additionally, the steps of associating identifiers with records, storing and retrieving those associations, determining correspondence between an identifier and a record, and locating a linked record represent evaluation, correlation, and retrieval of information that can be performed conceptually by a human using pen and paper, and therefore also fall within the mental process category. The claim does not primarily recite mathematical concepts and does not focus on a technological improvement to computer functionality, database architecture, or communication protocols.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recited elements of hardware processors, non-transitory media, databases, sender services, and electronic communications perform their ordinary and expected functions of storing, processing, transmitting, and retrieving information. The generation of a unique identifier, scrubbing of information, storage of associations in a mapping database, and subsequent lookup operations merely apply the abstract idea in a computerized environment without imposing a meaningful limitation that improves computer technology or provides a specific technical solution to a technological problem. The claim uses generic computing components as tools to implement information management and privacy filtering rather than improving the functioning of those components.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The additional elements, individually and in combination, represent well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the fields of data processing, record management, and electronic communication. Assigning identifiers, storing associations, sanitizing data, transmitting messages, and retrieving records from a database are conventional functions performed by generic computer systems. Applicant has not identified, and the record does not reflect, any unconventional technological arrangement or improvement arising from the claimed combination. Accordingly, the claim remains directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pub. No.: US 8151204 B2 to Lusen et al.; A document management and thumbnail image viewing system enables a user to display separate pages in individual different documents, use a "document break bar" to provide a visual cue distinguishing which pages are grouped into single documents, access and manipulate documents as well as document indexers and attributes through a one-touch pop-up window and provide one-touch access to document, page, and filing functions via controls implemented on a thumbnail image.
Pub. No.: US 20070061266 A1 to Moore et al.; The invention relates to hardware, software and electronic service components and systems to provide large-scale, reliable, and secure foundations for distributed databases and content management systems, combining unstructured and structured data, and allowing post-input reorganization to achieve a high degree of flexibility.
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