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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 09/10/25. Claims 1, 10, 17 have been amended. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14-15, 17-24 are presented for examination.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, 14-15, 17-24 are allowable over prior art because the prior art does not teach or disclose the amended features in the specific manner and combinations recited. However, the claims are still rejected under 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, 14-15, 17-24 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:
Claim 1 is drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., method). Claim 10 is drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine).
Independent claim 10 (which is representative of independent claim 1) recites…receive, as user input…a medical vaccine information from the user corresponding to the medical vaccine with which the user was vaccinated, wherein the medical vaccine information includes a vaccine manufacturer, a vaccine provider, a vaccine location, a vaccine date, and a vaccine dose; extract the medical vaccine information from information received from the user, wherein the medical vaccine information includes the vaccine manufacturer, the vaccine provider, and the vaccine location; create or update, in response to reception of the user input…, a personal health digital record for the user…; receive…additional medical vaccine information from the vaccine provider; verify the medical vaccine information received from the user based on a comparison to the additional medical vaccine information received from the vaccine provider; establish a connection between the user and the vaccine provider…; maintain a current personal health digital record for the user based on the connection between the user and the vaccine provider; generate…the electronic medical badge associated with the user based on the medical vaccine information provided by the user of the medical vaccine and verified based on the additional medical vaccine information received from the vaccine provider, the electronic medical badge comprising a 2D barcode that may be displayed…, wherein the 2D barcode corresponds with the medical vaccine information…, wherein the medical vaccine information of the user has been verified; [provide] the 2D barcode to…the user; receive an inquiry…triggered by a scan of the 2D barcode; and provide…in response to the inquiry, information indicating that the user has received the medical vaccine.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations noted above, as drafted, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people…following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “network interface” and “processor,” the claim encompasses rules or instructions followed to receive, analyze, and provide a user’s medical data (i.e., vaccination history). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites additional elements (i.e., a network interface; a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliant and secure database; storing the medical vaccine information in the personal health digital record for the user at a HIPAA compliant and secure database; a processor; a smart device; a first computing device; a second computing device). Claim 10 recites additional elements (i.e., a system having a storage medium storing a program having instructions, a processor; a network interface; a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliant and secure database; storing the medical vaccine information in the personal health digital record for the user at a HIPAA compliant and secure database; a smart device; a first computing device; a second computing device). Looking to the specifications, a computing system having a storage medium storing a program having instructions, a processor, a network interface is described at a high level of generality (¶ 0037-0046; ¶ 0052-0056; ¶ 00133-00134), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, “storing the medical vaccine information in the personal health digital record for the user at a HIPAA compliant and secure database” only invokes the database merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only provides the input data for the performance of the abstract idea, and as such, amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e., mere data gathering), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. See: MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the database being “HIPAA” only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., healthcare). Also, “a smart device,” “a first computing device,” and “a second computing device” only invokes the devices merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., displaying, receiving, transmitting data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The 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. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Reevaluated under step 2B, the additional elements noted above do not provide “significantly more” when taken either individually or as an ordered combination. As previously analyzed, the use of a general purpose computer or computers (i.e., a computing system having a storage medium storing a program having instructions, a processor, a network interface) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and 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, “storing the medical vaccine information in the personal health digital record for the user at a HIPAA compliant and secure database” only invokes the database merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). Furthermore, storing and retrieving information in memory has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. See: MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Furthermore, the database being “HIPAA” only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., healthcare). Also, “a smart device,” “a first computing device,” and “a second computing device” only invokes the devices merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., displaying, receiving, transmitting data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. 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; similarly, the current invention merely limits the claimed calculations to the healthcare industry which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. 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 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-24 include all the limitations of the parent claims and further elaborate on the abstract idea discussed above and incorporated herein.
Claims 6, 8-9, 12, 15, 17-19, 21-22, 24 further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claims 2, 11 further recites the additional elements of “embedding the electronic medical badge in a personal health digital records vault associated with the user, wherein the electronic medical badge is stored on the smart device.” Claim 3 further recites “providing, to the smart device, the personal health digital records vault report.” As analyzed previously, a smart device is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing, receiving data), and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. This also only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, although the claims recites the additional elements of “embedding the electronic medical badge in a personal health digital records vault associated with the user, wherein the electronic medical badge is stored on the smart device,” adding a step of storing data to a process that recites receiving, analyzing, and providing a user’s vaccination history does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of receiving, analyzing, and providing a user’s medical data (i.e., vaccination history), and as such, amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity. See: MPEP § 2106.05(g). Reevaluated under step 2B, storing and retrieving information in memory has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. See: MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claims 5, 14, 20, 23 further recites the additional elements of “the first computing device” to “display” and receive data. As analyzed previously, “the first computing device” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., displaying, receiving, transmitting data), and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 09/10/2025.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that:
Regarding the 101 rejections,
“"generating, by a processor, the electronic medical badge associated with the user based on the medical vaccine information provided by the user of the medical vaccine and verified based on the additional medical vaccine information received from the vaccine provider, the electronic medical badge comprising a 2D barcode that may be displayed on a smart device, wherein the 2D barcode corresponds with the medical vaccine information stored in the HIPAA compliant and secure database, wherein the medical vaccine information of the user has been verified" (emphasis added) cannot be considered to be "organizing human activity." Likewise, the limitations "sending the 2D barcode to a first computing device of the user; [and] receiving an inquiry from a second computing device triggered by a scan of the 2D barcode" (emphasis added) are not "organizing human activity"”;
“Similar to "storing information" in the analysis of Example 42, claim 1 includes "creating or updating, in response to reception of the user input via the network interface, a personal health digital record for the user at a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliant and secure database by storing the medical vaccine information in the personal health digital record for the user at the HIPPA compliant and secure database"…similar to the "providing remote access over a network ... and transmitting messages to all of the users," that is indicated to integrate the method into a practical application in Example 42…This combination of steps, in connection with the other aspects of claim 1 enables a user device to store and control access to vaccine information in a more secure manner…by verifying and storing the vaccine information in the user's personal health digital record, the system is ready to efficiently provide the verified vaccine information at any point in response to a scan of the previously provided barcode…"establishing a connection between the user and the vaccine provider at the HIPAA compliant and secure database; [and] maintaining a current personal health digital record for the user based on the connection between the user and the vaccine provider" the record that is accessed, based on a scan of the 2D barcode is one that has been maintained current" "based on the connection [established] between the user and the vaccine provider"”; “In considering the additional elements in claim 1, the Office Action does not address the generation and sending of "the electronic medical badge comprising a 2D barcode," and later "receiving an inquiry from a second computing device triggered by a scan of the 2D barcode; and providing, to the second computing device in response to the inquiry, information indicating that the user has received the medical vaccine" which impose meaningful limitations on the claims and involve "more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components"”; “enables the user's vaccine information to be readily accessible yet stored in a secure manner. Claim 1 includes not only the storage of the personal health digital record, but also provides a secure manner for later accessing vaccine information within the personal health digital record based on the 2D barcode provided to the user. Furthermore, the claim maintains "a current personal health digital record for the user" by "establishing [at the HIPPA compliant and secure database] a connection between the user and the vaccine provider…The combination of features in claim includes not only the generation and storage of the personal health digital record for the user in a HIPPA compliant and secure database, but also includes establishing a connection that enables the user's record to be maintained current and further includes, among various additional features, generating and sending a 2D barcode to the user and a later inquiry triggered by a scan of the 2D barcode that triggers a response with vaccine information from the current personal health digital record, which is much more than "receiving, analyzing, and providing a user's medical data.""”
It is respectfully submitted that Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments and does not find them persuasive. Examiner has attempted to address all of the arguments presented by Applicant; however, any arguments inadvertently not addressed are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
In response to Applicant’s argument that (a) regarding the 101 rejections,
“"generating, by a processor, the electronic medical badge associated with the user based on the medical vaccine information provided by the user of the medical vaccine and verified based on the additional medical vaccine information received from the vaccine provider, the electronic medical badge comprising a 2D barcode that may be displayed on a smart device, wherein the 2D barcode corresponds with the medical vaccine information stored in the HIPAA compliant and secure database, wherein the medical vaccine information of the user has been verified" (emphasis added) cannot be considered to be "organizing human activity." Likewise, the limitations "sending the 2D barcode to a first computing device of the user; [and] receiving an inquiry from a second computing device triggered by a scan of the 2D barcode" (emphasis added) are not "organizing human activity"””:
It is respectfully submitted that per broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification, the claims of the present invention encompass the activity of (to paraphrase) rules or instructions followed to receive, analyze, and provide a user’s medical data (i.e., vaccination history), which covers the sub-grouping of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Put another way, the claimed invention amounts to a series of rules or steps that a user (i.e., patient) would follow to organize and analyze health (i.e., vaccination) information. This is an abstract idea. That the steps are performed on a well-known, general purpose computer (i.e., a computing system having a storage medium storing a program having instructions, a processor, a network interface) does not remove the invention from being directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues “generating, by a processor, the electronic medical badge associated with the user based on the medical vaccine information provided by the user of the medical vaccine and verified based on the additional medical vaccine information received from the vaccine provider, the electronic medical badge comprising a 2D barcode that may be displayed on a smart device, wherein the 2D barcode corresponds with the medical vaccine information stored in the HIPAA compliant and secure database, wherein the medical vaccine information of the user has been verified" (emphasis added) cannot be considered to be "organizing human activity." Likewise, the limitations "sending the 2D barcode to a first computing device of the user; [and] receiving an inquiry from a second computing device triggered by a scan of the 2D barcode" (emphasis added) are not "organizing human activity."”” However, Applicant fails to specify how the aforementioned claim limitations “cannot be considered to be "organizing human activity."” Regardless, the claim limitations of “generate…the electronic medical badge associated with the user based on the medical vaccine information provided by the user of the medical vaccine and verified based on the additional medical vaccine information received from the vaccine provider, the electronic medical badge comprising a 2D barcode that may be displayed…, wherein the 2D barcode corresponds with the medical vaccine information…, wherein the medical vaccine information of the user has been verified” are interpreted as rules or instructions followed to receive, analyze, and provide a user’s medical data (i.e., vaccination history), which is the abstract idea of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Furthermore, the “processor,” “smart device,” and “HIPAA compliant and secure database” are not interpreted as part of the abstract idea, but as additional elements to be interpreted in Step 2A, Prong Two. The “processor” is described at a high level of generality (¶ 0037-0046; ¶ 0052-0056; ¶ 00133-00134), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The “ smart device” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., displaying data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. The “HIPAA compliant and secure database” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only provides the input data for the performance of the abstract idea, and as such, amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e., mere data gathering), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. See: MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the database being “HIPAA” only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., healthcare). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The 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.
Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
“Similar to "storing information" in the analysis of Example 42, claim 1 includes "creating or updating, in response to reception of the user input via the network interface, a personal health digital record for the user at a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliant and secure database by storing the medical vaccine information in the personal health digital record for the user at the HIPPA compliant and secure database"…similar to the "providing remote access over a network ... and transmitting messages to all of the users," that is indicated to integrate the method into a practical application in Example 42…This combination of steps, in connection with the other aspects of claim 1 enables a user device to store and control access to vaccine information in a more secure manner…by verifying and storing the vaccine information in the user's personal health digital record, the system is ready to efficiently provide the verified vaccine information at any point in response to a scan of the previously provided barcode…"establishing a connection between the user and the vaccine provider at the HIPAA compliant and secure database; [and] maintaining a current personal health digital record for the user based on the connection between the user and the vaccine provider" the record that is accessed, based on a scan of the 2D barcode is one that has been maintained current" "based on the connection [established] between the user and the vaccine provider"”; “In considering the additional elements in claim 1, the Office Action does not address the generation and sending of "the electronic medical badge comprising a 2D barcode," and later "receiving an inquiry from a second computing device triggered by a scan of the 2D barcode; and providing, to the second computing device in response to the inquiry, information indicating that the user has received the medical vaccine" which impose meaningful limitations on the claims and involve "more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components"”; “enables the user's vaccine information to be readily accessible yet stored in a secure manner. Claim 1 includes not only the storage of the personal health digital record, but also provides a secure manner for later accessing vaccine information within the personal health digital record based on the 2D barcode provided to the user. Furthermore, the claim maintains "a current personal health digital record for the user" by "establishing [at the HIPPA compliant and secure database] a connection between the user and the vaccine provider…The combination of features in claim includes not only the generation and storage of the personal health digital record for the user in a HIPPA compliant and secure database, but also includes establishing a connection that enables the user's record to be maintained current and further includes, among various additional features, generating and sending a 2D barcode to the user and a later inquiry triggered by a scan of the 2D barcode that triggers a response with vaccine information from the current personal health digital record, which is much more than "receiving, analyzing, and providing a user's medical data.""”:
Applicant argues “Example 42.” However, the claim limitations of the present invention are different from the claim limitations of those found eligible in Example 42, as Applicant notes. Even if the claim limitations of the present invention are similar to that of the claims found eligible, the claimed inventions are fundamentally different in scope and should be interpreted based on the asserted fact patterns; other fact patterns may have different eligibility outcomes, as is the case with the claims of the present invention. Example 42 was found to be eligible because the claimed invention provided a technological solution to an identified technological problem and “the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user.” Unlike the claims found eligible in Example 42, the claims of the present invention as a whole do not provide a technological solution to an identified technological problem and the additional elements do not recite a specific improvement over prior art systems.
Applicant argues “enables a user device to store and control access to vaccine information in a more secure manner,” “efficiently provide the verified vaccine information at any point in response to a scan of the previously provided barcode,” “the record that is accessed, based on a scan of the 2D barcode is one that has been maintained current,” “enables the user's vaccine information to be readily accessible yet stored in a secure manner,” “provides a secure manner for later accessing vaccine information within the personal health digital record based on the 2D barcode provided to the user,” “maintains "a current personal health digital record for the user."” However, “store and control access to…information in a more secure manner,” “efficiently provide…information,” and “the record…has been maintained current” addresses administrative problems, and not a technical problem to any specific devices, or computers for that matter. Furthermore, even if the claims provide the aforementioned alleged improvements, these alleged benefits are at best, an improvement to the abstract idea of rules or instructions followed to receive, analyze, and provide a user’s medical data. However, an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
The computing system did not cause the argued problem and thus it is not a technical problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined. Even a technical solution to a non-technical problem does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant’s claims do not recite the invention of improvements to computer functionality, technology, or any other technological field, but the use of generic computer components (i.e., a computing system having a storage medium storing a program having instructions, a processor, a network interface) to receive, analyze, and provide a user’s medical data (i.e., vaccination history), which is an abstract idea, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Examiner cannot find and Appellant has not identified any problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined (i.e., a well-known, general purpose computer). While the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing any technical improvement to computer technology, a physical improvement to the computer, or any other technical improvement. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Furthermore, the claim limitations to which Applicant seem to refer as providing the alleged improvements (i.e., “create or update, in response to reception of the user input…, a personal health digital record for the user…,” “generate…the electronic medical badge associated with the user based on the medical vaccine information provided by the user of the medical vaccine and verified based on the additional medical vaccine information received from the vaccine provider, the electronic medical badge comprising a 2D barcode that may be displayed…, wherein the 2D barcode corresponds with the medical vaccine information…, wherein the medical vaccine information of the user has been verified; [provide] the 2D barcode to…the user; receive an inquiry…triggered by a scan of the 2D barcode; and provide…in response to the inquiry, information indicating that the user has received the medical vaccine,” “establish a connection between the user and the vaccine provider…”) are interpreted as rules or instructions to receive, analyze, and provide a user’s medical data (i.e., vaccination history), which is the abstract idea, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Also, “storing the medical vaccine information in the personal health digital record for the user at a HIPAA compliant and secure database” only invokes the database merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only provides the input data for the performance of the abstract idea, and as such, amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e., mere data gathering), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. See: MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the database being “HIPAA” only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., healthcare). Also, “a smart device,” “a first computing device,” and “a second computing device” only invokes the devices merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., displaying, receiving, transmitting data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually.
Applicant argues “In considering the additional elements in claim 1, the Office Action does not address the generation and sending of "the electronic medical badge comprising a 2D barcode," and later "receiving an inquiry from a second computing device triggered by a scan of the 2D barcode; and providing, to the second computing device in response to the inquiry, information indicating that the user has received the medical vaccine" which impose meaningful limitations on the claims and involve "more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components."” However, Applicant fails to specify how the aforementioned claim limitations “impose meaningful limitations on the claims and involve "more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components."”” Regardless, the claim limitations which describe “the generation and sending of "the electronic medical badge comprising a 2D barcode"” and “receive an inquiry…triggered by a scan of the 2D barcode; and provide…in response to the inquiry, information indicating that the user has received the medical vaccine” are interpreted as rules or instructions to receive, analyze, and provide a user’s medical data (i.e., vaccination history), which is the abstract idea, and not additional elements to be interpreted in Step 2A, Prong Two. Furthermore, “a second computing device” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., receiving, transmitting data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually.
Applicant argues “The combination of features in claim includes not only the generation and storage of the personal health digital record for the user in a HIPPA compliant and secure database, but also includes establishing a connection that enables the user's record to be maintained current and further includes, among various additional features, generating and sending a 2D barcode to the user and a later inquiry triggered by a scan of the 2D barcode that triggers a response with vaccine information from the current personal health digital record, which is much more than "receiving, analyzing, and providing a user's medical data."” However, Applicant fails to specify how the claim limitations amount to “much more than "receiving, analyzing, and providing a user's medical data."” Regardless, the claim limitations to which Applicant seem to refer as describing “the generation and storage of the personal health digital record for the user…generating and sending a 2D barcode to the user and a later inquiry triggered by a scan of the 2D barcode that triggers a response with vaccine information from the current personal health digital record” are rules or instructions followed to receive, analyze, and provide a user’s medical data (i.e., vaccination history). Furthermore, the “HIPAA compliant and secure database” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only provides the input data for the performance of the abstract idea, and as such, amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e., mere data gathering), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. See: MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the database being “HIPAA” only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., healthcare). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually.
Thus, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Reevaluated under step 2B, the additional elements noted above do not provide “significantly more” when taken either individually or as an ordered combination. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, Examiner maintains the 101 rejections of claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, 14-15, 17-24, which have been updated to address Applicant’s remarks and to comply with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence in the above Office Action.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Huynh whose telephone number is (571) 272-8317. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-5 PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683