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In light of the amendments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments, the previous objections have been withdrawn.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In light of the amendments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn.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 07/28/2025, the following has occurred: claims 1 and 11 have been amended; claims 2-10 and 12-20 have remained unchanged; and no new claims have been added.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 09/18/2020
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Applicant amended the claims to overcome the objections. Examiner withdraws these objections.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) Rejections:
Applicant amended the claims to overcome the previous 112(a) claim rejections. Examiner withdraws these rejections.
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:
The claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application
Applicant argues that claim 1 provides a particular implementation of a method that performs several steps for providing real-time patient data sale processing and implements a load balancing scheme. Applicant states that the claim integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner however respectfully disagrees as the newly-added spawning limitations were determined to have added conventional activity to the claims.
Applicant states that is it not well-known to load balance. Examiner however would respectfully point towards the claim language as containing well-known limitations.
Lastly, Applicant states that the claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer to enable concurrent execution of processes. Applicant points towards the present claims being similar to those of Core Wireless. Examiner however respectfully disagrees as the claims do not recite an improvement to a computer as they recite conventional computing activity. The complete rejection can be seen below in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection section.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant amended the claims to overcome the previous 103 claim rejections. Examiner withdraws these rejections.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 11 recite execution steps which state that a contract is being executed “to validate” information. This validation step is being interpreted as intended use. Furthermore, these validation steps do not appear to have support within the specification so if these limitations are recited in an active manner they would be given 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 1-20 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 and claims 11-20 are drawn to a method, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-20 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 of providing real-time patient data sale processing, the method comprising the steps of:
1) spawning a first computer process configured to execute a first set of computer program instructions;
2) spawning, concurrently with the spawning of the first computer process, a second computer process configured to execute a second set of computer program instructions, wherein a combination of the first set of computer program instructions and the second set of computer program instructions is configured 2a) to perform the steps of the method of providing real-time patient data sale processing;
3) generating, via a) a processor, a plurality of global patient records including at least one global patient record for at least one patient, wherein generating the plurality of global patient records includes:
3a) receiving patient data from a plurality of data providers, the patient data having disparate formats, wherein receiving patient data from the plurality of data providers includes:
3a1) generating, via b) a royalty calculation module, metadata identifying one or more of a data provider of the plurality of data providers, a patient identifier, and a timestamp; and
3a2) appending the metadata to the patient data received from the data provider;
3b) storing the patient data having disparate format and the appended metadata in a database,
3c) aggregating the patient data having disparate formats from the plurality of different types of healthcare providers into the global patient records, and
3d) storing the aggregated patient data having disparate formats in the database,
4) receiving a query request having one or more parameters for patient data from a data consumer over c) an encrypted network, wherein a profile of one or more data providers of the plurality of data providers defines a syntax for queries to be sent to the one or more data providers,
5) formatting the query request based on the syntax for queries to be sent to the one or more data providers,
6) sending the formatted query request to the one or more data providers,
7) receiving, from the one or more data providers, patient data responsive to the formatted request,
8) storing the patient data responsive to the formatted request in the database,
9) correlating, via d) an electronic health record (EHR) Data utility, the one or more parameters with the plurality of global patient records stored in the database to find matching patient data in real-time with sub-millisecond delay,
10) presenting, to the data consumer, an indication of the matching patient data found in the database,
11) receiving, from the data consumer, a purchase request for a portion of the matching patient data to be included in a query response, wherein the portion of the matching patient data includes a lesser amount of data than an amount of the matching patient data,
12) including portion of the matching patient data in the query response based on the purchase request,
13) returning the query response to the data consumer, and
14) paying a royalty to the one or more data providers, the utility, and the first patient based on the portion of the matching patient data.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 2a) perform the steps of the method of providing real-time patient data sale processing, 3) generating a plurality of global patient records including at least one global patient record for at least one patient, wherein generating the plurality of global patient records includes: 3a) receiving patient data from a plurality of data providers, the patient data having disparate formats, wherein receiving patient data from the plurality of data providers includes: 3a1) generating metadata identifying one or more of a data provider of the plurality of data providers, a patient identifier, and a timestamp, and 3a2) appending the metadata to the patient data received from the data provider, 3b) storing the patient data having disparate format and the appended metadata in a database, 3c) aggregating the patient data having disparate formats from the plurality of different types of healthcare providers into the global patient records, and 3d) storing the aggregated patient data having disparate formats in the database, 4) receiving a query request having one or more parameters for patient data from a data consumer, wherein a profile of one or more data providers of the plurality of data providers defines a syntax for queries to be sent to the one or more data providers, 5) formatting the query request based on the syntax for queries to be sent to the one or more data providers, 6) sending the formatted query request to the one or more data providers, 7) receiving, from the one or more data providers, patient data responsive to the formatted request, 8) storing the patient data responsive to the formatted request in the database, 9) correlating, via a health record Data utility, the one or more parameters with the plurality of global patient records stored in the database to find matching patient data in real-time with sub-millisecond delay, 10) presenting, to the data consumer, an indication of the matching patient data found in the database, 11) receiving, from the data consumer, a purchase request for a portion of the matching patient data to be included in a query response, wherein the portion of the matching patient data includes a lesser amount of data than an amount of the matching patient data, 12) including portion of the matching patient data in the query response based on the purchase request, 13) returning the query response to the data consumer, and 14) paying a royalty to the one or more data providers, the utility, and the first patient based on the portion of the matching patient data. 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 a process of exchanging information for money.
Claim 11 recites a method of providing ad-hoc patient data purchase processing, the method comprising the steps of:
15) spawning a first computer process configured to execute a first set of computer program instructions;
16) spawning, concurrently with the spawning of the first computer process, a second computer process configured to execute a second set of computer program instructions, wherein a combination of the first set of computer program instructions and the second set of computer program instructions is configured 16a) to perform the steps of the method of providing ad-hoc patient data purchase processing;
17) storing patient-related data received from a plurality of data providers in a global patient record database, the patient-related data having disparate formats, wherein receiving the patient data from the plurality of data providers includes:
17a) generating, via b) a royalty calculation module, metadata identifying one or more of a data provider of the plurality of data providers, a patient identifier, and a timestamp; and
17b) appending the metadata to the patient data received from the data provider;
18) receiving a data sale request, having one or more data sales criteria, from a data consumer, wherein a profile of one or more data providers of the plurality of data providers defines a syntax for queries to be sent to the one or more data providers;
19) formatting a query request based on the syntax for queries to be sent to the one or more data providers;
20) sending the formatted query request to the one or more data providers,
21) receiving, from the one or more data providers, patient data responsive to the formatted request;
22) storing the patient data responsive to the formatted request in the database;
23) querying the database for patient data matching the data sales criteria in real-time with sub-millisecond delay;
24) presenting, to the data consumer, an indication of the patient data that matches the data sale request;
25) receiving, from the data consumer, a purchase request for a portion of the patient data that matches the data sale request to be included in a data sale result set, wherein the portion of patient data that matches the data sale request includes a lesser amount of data than an amount of the patient data that matches the data sale request;
26) generating the data sale result including the portion of the matching patient data in the data sale result set based on the purchase request;
27) sending the data sale result to the data consumer; and
28) facilitating settlement between the data consumer and the data provider by paying a royalty to the parties that contributed data to the data sale result set.
Claim 11 recites, in part, the steps of 16a) perform the steps of the method of providing ad-hoc patient data purchase processing; 17) storing patient-related data received from a plurality of data providers in a global patient record database, the patient-related data having disparate formats, wherein receiving the patient data from the plurality of data providers includes: 17a) generating metadata identifying one or more of a data provider of the plurality of data providers, a patient identifier, and a timestamp, and 17b) appending the metadata to the patient data received from the data provider, 18) receiving a data sale request, having one or more data sales criteria, from a data consumer, wherein a profile of one or more data providers of the plurality of data providers defines a syntax for queries to be sent to the one or more data providers, 19) formatting a query request based on the syntax for queries to be sent to the one or more data providers, 20) sending the formatted query request to the one or more data providers, 21) receiving, from the one or more data providers, patient data responsive to the formatted request, 22) storing the patient data responsive to the formatted request in the database, 23) querying the database for patient data matching the data sales criteria in real-time with sub-millisecond delay, 24) presenting, to the data consumer, an indication of the patient data that matches the data sale request, 25) receiving, from the data consumer, a purchase request for a portion of the patient data that matches the data sale request to be included in a data sale result set, wherein the portion of patient data that matches the data sale request includes a lesser amount of data than an amount of the patient data that matches the data sale request, 26) generating the data sale result including the portion of the matching patient data in the data sale result set based on the purchase request, 27) sending the data sale result to the data consumer, and 28) facilitating settlement between the data consumer and the data provider by paying a royalty to the parties that contributed data to the data sale result set. 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 a process of exchanging information for money.
Depending claims 2-10 and 12-20 include all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 7 and 17 add the additional step of “automatically identify the recipients of a payment request by storing a list of the parties that provide patient data included in the matching patient data”. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-16, and 18-20 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 and 12-20 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 11 (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) a processor, b) a royalty calculation module, c) an encrypted network, d) an electronic health record (EHR) Data utility, and e) a distributed ledger (from claims 6 and 16) to perform the claimed steps.
The claims include the additional element steps of 1) “spawning a first computer process configured to execute a first set of computer program instructions”, 2) “spawning, concurrently with the spawning of the first computer process, a second computer process configured to execute a second set of computer program instructions, wherein a combination of the first set of computer program instructions and the second set of computer program instructions is configured to perform steps”, 15) “spawning a first computer process configured to execute a first set of computer program instructions”, and 16) “spawning, concurrently with the spawning of the first computer process, a second computer process configured to execute a second set of computer program instructions, wherein a combination of the first set of computer program instructions and the second set of computer program instructions is configured to perform steps”.
The a) processor, b) a royalty calculation module, and d) electronic health record (EHR) Data utility in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, page 10, line 20 to page 11, line 4 where the processor can be a generic processor, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The c) encrypted network in these steps adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
The steps of 1), 2), 15), and 16) add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Lastly, the e) distributed ledger in these steps is 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 a generic computer component (such as a generic recitation of using blockchain and smart contracts, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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) a processor, b) a royalty calculation module, c) an encrypted network, d) an electronic health record (EHR) Data utility, and e) a distributed ledger to perform the claimed steps as well as the additional element steps of 1) “spawning a first computer process configured to execute a first set of computer program instructions”, 2) “spawning, concurrently with the spawning of the first computer process, a second computer process configured to execute a second set of computer program instructions, wherein a combination of the first set of computer program instructions and the second set of computer program instructions is configured to perform steps”, 15) “spawning a first computer process configured to execute a first set of computer program instructions”, and 16) “spawning, concurrently with the spawning of the first computer process, a second computer process configured to execute a second set of computer program instructions, wherein a combination of the first set of computer program instructions and the second set of computer program instructions is configured to perform 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. 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 current invention enables an exchange of patient data and royalties utilizing a) a processor, b) a royalty calculation module, and d) an electronic health record (EHR) Data utility, thus these computing component are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
The c) encrypted network 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 query request data and patient data, and transmits this data over an encrypted network, for example the Internet.
Furthermore, the current invention executes a transaction on a blockchain utilizing e) a distributed ledger, thus this blockchain element is adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using a computer technology.
Lastly, the following State of the Art Publication demonstrates the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional elements: 1) “spawning a first computer process configured to execute a first set of computer program instructions”, 2) “spawning, concurrently with the spawning of the first computer process, a second computer process configured to execute a second set of computer program instructions, wherein a combination of the first set of computer program instructions and the second set of computer program instructions is configured to perform steps”, 15) “spawning a first computer process configured to execute a first set of computer program instructions”, and 16) “spawning, concurrently with the spawning of the first computer process, a second computer process configured to execute a second set of computer program instructions, wherein a combination of the first set of computer program instructions and the second set of computer program instructions is configured to perform steps”, e.g. see paragraph [0057] of U.S. 2019/0394667 to Shariati where there is spawning of processes and doing so concurrently is conventional.
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 1-20 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