DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejections:
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “The claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea, but instead addresses specific technical problems related to the exchange of electronic healthcare information, including the fragmentation of communication standards and the inability to efficiently correlate data across heterogeneous systems”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that although the claim is described as operating in the healthcare information technology environment, the focus of the claim remains on collecting electronic healthcare messages, extracting information from the messages, storing/indexing the information, and mining/analyzing the collected patient healthcare information to make health-related findings. The limitations “for each of the plurality of electronic messages, identifying,…”, “indexing…”, “mining…”, “identifying a group of messages…”, “for the collected patient…analyzing…” are mental process because these steps can be done by evaluation and judgement of data.
The limitations “capturing…”, “routing...”, “automatically obtaining….”, “archiving….”, “collecting…”, “communicating….” are insignificant extra solution activities and well-known, routine and convention activities as MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." and/or "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“software components”, “databases”, “message router of the message archiving and processing engine”, “by an intelligence server”, “wherein the message mining system provides a single access point for a consuming application to retrieve and mine data across the plurality of electronic messages” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data) and/or a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Merely limiting the data to healthcare information or limiting the environment to healthcare communication standards does not remove the claim from the abstract idea category.
Detailed explanation is provided below in the 101 sections.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Under Step One of the Alice framework (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)), the inquiry is whether the claims are "directed to" a patent-ineligible concept. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that claims directed to technological improvements are not abstract and therefore satisfy Step One. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Applicant submits that amended independent claim 20 is directed to a specific technological solution to technical problems in healthcare information technology”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that Enfish, and the present claims are not similar. In Enfish, the claims were directed to a specific improvement in the way a computer database operated. The instant claim does not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer, network itself, or healthcare messaging standards. Instead, the claim uses genetic computer components, such as a message mining system, message router, processing units, databases, repository, intelligence server, and communication interface, to perform data collection, parsing, storage, retrieval, and analysis. The claim therefore uses computer technology as a tool to implement the abstract idea, rather than reciting a specific improvement to computer functionality. Therefore, the claims do not provide any solution to technical problems in the healthcare information technology.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Healthcare communications networks use multiple messaging standards, leading to data fragmentation and limiting cross-system analysis. …. Moreover, the data may be spread across multiple nodes in the system. The claimed invention addresses technical problems related to the exchange of electronic healthcare information, including the fragmentation of communication standards and the inability of conventional systems to efficiently process, archive, mine, and analyze healthcare information communicated across multiple incompatible communication standards. The claim does not merely recite an abstract idea with generic computer implementation but rather discloses a specific architectural framework that improves the functioning of healthcare IT systems”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that the claims do not recite a specific technological improvement. The claim merely identifies the standard according to which a message is formatted, routes the message to a corresponding processing unit, parses the message to extract field values, and stores the extracted information. These are data handling steps performed using generic computer components.
The claim does not recite a specific technological improvement to those standards or to network communication itself. The claim merely identifies the standard according to which a message is formatted, routes the message to a corresponding processing unit, parses the message to extract field values, and stores the extracted information.
The limitations “for each of the plurality of electronic messages, identifying,…”, “indexing…”, “mining…”, “identifying a group of messages…”, “for the collected patient…analyzing…” are mental process because these steps can be done by evaluation and judgement of data.
The limitations “capturing…”, “routing...”, “automatically obtaining….”, “archiving….”, “collecting…”, “communicating….” are insignificant extra solution activities and well-known, routine and convention activities as MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." and/or "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“software components”, “databases”, “message router of the message archiving and processing engine”, “by an intelligence server”, “wherein the message mining system provides a single access point for a consuming application to retrieve and mine data across the plurality of electronic messages” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data) and/or a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “More particularly, the claimed invention provides a unified architecture that captures and archives messages across multiple communication standards to preserve data integrity of the original messages, while also integrating message content from disparate communication standards to provide a single access point for cross-protocol analysis, search, and retrieval by consuming applications. Claim 20 recites, for example, i) a message mining system connected to a healthcare communication network that captures electronic messages according to "…iv) databases associated with the healthcare information communication standards in which the electronic messages of the associated healthcare information communication are archived in an unmodified form; v) a repository that is separate from the databases in which the electronic messages are archived for storing the content extracted from the electronic messages”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that Applicant argues that claim 20 provides a unified architecture that captures and archives messages across multiple standards while preserving original message integrity and integrating content from disparate standards for search, retrieval, and analysis. The Examiner acknowledges that amended claim 20 recites archiving the original electronic messages in an unmodified form and storing extracted content in a separate repository. However, preserving an original copy of data while also storing extracted data in another repository is a data management concept, not a specific improvement to computer functionality. The claim does not recite any particular non-conventional database structure, indexing technique, routing algorithm, parsing technique, or network protocol improvement. Instead, the claim broadly recites using databases and repositories to store original messages and extracted information. Such generic storage and retrieval functions are conventional computer activities that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The limitations “for each of the plurality of electronic messages, identifying,…”, “indexing…”, “mining…”, “identifying a group of messages…”, “for the collected patient…analyzing…” are mental process because these steps can be done by evaluation and judgement of data.
The limitations “capturing…”, “routing...”, “automatically obtaining….”, “archiving….”, “collecting…”, “communicating….” are insignificant extra solution activities and well-known, routine and convention activities as MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." and/or "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“software components”, “databases”, “message router of the message archiving and processing engine”, “by an intelligence server”, “wherein the message mining system provides a single access point for a consuming application to retrieve and mine data across the plurality of electronic messages” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data) and/or a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Merely limiting the data to healthcare information or limiting the environment to healthcare communication standards does not remove the claim from the abstract idea category.
Detailed explanation is provided below in the 101 sections.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “The claimed architecture includes protocol-aware archival mechanisms that maintain message fidelity across communication standards and content extraction and normalization to a separate repository to harmonize content from heterogeneous messages for downstream analytics. This architecture allows the message mining system to provide a "single access point for a consuming application to retrieve and mine data across the plurality of electronic messages." As such, an intelligence server can efficiently retrieve and analyze content from electronic messages of different standards captured from different network nodes to enable actionable insights while the integrity of the original electronic messages is preserved. The claimed invention is thus rooted in technical improvements to healthcare communication computer networks, not abstract mental processes. The claimed invention improves the functioning of healthcare IT systems by enabling unified and efficient archiving, search, retrieval, and analysis across standards while preserving message integrity”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that Applicant argues that the architecture provides a “single access point” for a consuming application to retrieve and mine data across the plurality of electronic messages, allowing an intelligence server to efficiently retrieve and analyze content from different standards and nodes.
Examiner cites that providing a single access point for retrieving information from multiple sources is a way of organizing and presenting data to a user or application. The claim does not recite a particular technical implementation of the access point, nor does it recite how the access point improves computer performance, network operation, database operation, or message transmission. The limitation instead facilitates access to collected information for downstream mining and analysis, which remains part of the abstract idea.
Moreover, the limitation “wherein the message mining system provides a single access point for a consuming application to retrieve and mine data across the plurality of electronic messages” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data) and/or a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Independent claims 27 and 34 are rejected on the same grounds of rejection of claim 20 and the above cited arguments applies to claims 27 and 34 as well.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 of instant application is compared to the claim 1 of US Patent No. 9639615 below.
Instant Application
US Patent No. 9639615
Claim 1: A method of archiving and analyzing healthcare communication messages, the method comprising:
Claim 1: A method of mining healthcare communication messages transmitted over a healthcare network comprising:
capturing, by a message archiving and processing engine of a message mining system connected to a healthcare communication computer network that comprises a plurality nodes, messages between nodes in the plurality of nodes to collect a plurality of electronic messages according to a plurality of different healthcare communication standards for communicating healthcare information between software components, each of the plurality of electronic messages comprising corresponding patient healthcare information formatted according to a particular healthcare information communication standard from the plurality of healthcare information communication standards;
receiving, from the healthcare network, a plurality of messages, wherein each message of the plurality of messages is formatted according to one of a plurality of healthcare communication standard;
for each of the plurality of electronic messages, identifying, by a message router of the message archiving and processing engine, a corresponding particular one of the multiple of healthcare information communication standards according to which that message is formatted;
identifying, from the plurality of received messages, a first set of messages formatted according to a first healthcare communication standard and a second set of messages formatted according to a second healthcare communication standard, the second healthcare communication standard being different from the first healthcare communication standard;
routing, by the message router, each of the plurality of electronic messages to a corresponding processing unit of a plurality of processing units in the message archiving and processing engine, the corresponding processing unit associated with the particular healthcare information communication standard according to which that message from the plurality of electronic messages is formatted for message processing;
automatically obtaining, by the corresponding processing units, the corresponding patient healthcare information from each of the plurality of electronic messages by parsing each of the plurality of electronic messages based on the particular healthcare information communication standard according to which that message from the plurality of electronic messages is formatted to extract field values, as defined by the particular healthcare information communication standard, which comprise the corresponding patient healthcare information, wherein the corresponding patient healthcare information is obtained from each of the plurality of electronic messages and normalized by the corresponding processing unit to which the electronic message was routed by the message router;
identifying first patient healthcare information by parsing each of the identified first set of messages based on the first healthcare communication standard and the identified second set of messages based on the second healthcare communication standard;
archiving the plurality of electronic messages using a plurality of databases, wherein archiving the plurality of electronic messages using the plurality of databases comprises archiving each of the plurality of electronic messages in a corresponding one of the plurality of databases which is associated with the particular healthcare information communication standard according to which that message from the plurality of electronic messages is formatted, wherein each of the plurality of electronic messages is archived in an unmodified form;
archiving the identified first set of messages in a first repository associated with the first healthcare communication standard and the identified second set of messages in a second repository associated with the second healthcare communication standard;
normalizing the collected copy of the first patient healthcare information stored in the patient healthcare information repository;
indexing the plurality of electronic messages for querying and retrieval:
collecting, in a repository which is separate from the plurality of databases, patient healthcare information extracted from the plurality of electronic messages, wherein collecting the patient healthcare information from the plurality of electronic messages comprises copying the field values extracted from the plurality of electronic messages into the repository, wherein the message mining system provides a single access point for a consuming application to retrieve and mine data across the plurality of electronic messages;
collecting, in a patient healthcare information repository, a copy of the first patient healthcare information identified from the identified first set of messages and the identified second set of messages, wherein the copy of the first patient healthcare information is grouped based on at least one attribute associated with the first patient healthcare information;
mining, by an intelligence server, the collected patient healthcare information extracted from the plurality of electronic messages to make health-related findings, wherein automatically analyzing mining the collected patient healthcare information to make the health-related findings further comprises:
identifying at least one trend based on a data pattern associated with the collected copy of the first patient healthcare information by mining the collected copy of the first patient healthcare information stored in the patient healthcare information repository;
identifying a group of messages associated with a particular patient, the group of messages being at least a subset of the plurality of electronic messages;
for the collected patient healthcare information extracted from the group of messages associated with the particular patient, analyzing ones of the field values extracted from the group of messages and corresponding to a selected characteristic of the particular patient to generate determine a result trend associated with the selected characteristic of the particular patient, wherein the health-related findings are made based on the result determined trend; and
generating a first health-related finding based on the at least one identified trend using an automated reasoning;
communicating, by a communication interface, the health-related findings to a user.
and outputting the first health-related finding to a user interface.
Claims 20, 27, 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,639,615 (hereinafter ‘615) and in view of Sauerwald (US 2005/0043968) and in view of Lee et al. (US 2008/0220873).
With respect to claim 20, US Patent No. ‘615 teaches all the limitations except for the limitations “capturing, by a message archiving and processing engine of a message mining system connected to a healthcare communication computer network that comprises a plurality nodes, messages between nodes in the plurality of nodes to collect a plurality of electronic messages according to a plurality of different healthcare communication standards for communicating healthcare information between software components”; “routing, by the message router, each of the plurality of electronic messages to a corresponding processing unit of a plurality of processing units in the message archiving and processing engine”; “automatically obtaining, by the corresponding processing units, the corresponding patient healthcare information from each of the plurality of electronic messages by parsing each of the plurality of electronic messages based on the particular healthcare information communication standard according to which that message from the plurality of electronic messages is formatted to extract field values, as defined by the particular healthcare information communication standard, which comprise the corresponding patient healthcare information, wherein the corresponding patient healthcare information is obtained from each of the plurality of electronic messages”, “indexing the plurality of electronic messages for querying and retrieval”, “intelligence server”.
However, Sauerwald teaches capturing, by a message archiving and processing engine of a message mining system connected to a healthcare communication computer network that comprises a plurality nodes, messages between nodes in the plurality of nodes to collect a plurality of electronic messages according to a plurality of different healthcare communication standards for communicating healthcare information between software components ([0031, an Institute Of Electrical And Electronic Engineers (IEEE) bus compatible protocol, a Digital and Imaging Communications (DICOM) protocol, and a Health Level Seven (HL7) protocol.], [0035, For example, HL7 information has standard field labels that identify a hierarchy of field labels from a segment (i.e., high) level to a sub-component (i.e., low) level. An example of a standard HL7 field label is patient identification ("ID") five (i.e., "PID 5"), which represents "patient name.] hierarchy contains nodes and processes messages according to plurality of standards);
routing, by the message router, each of the plurality of electronic messages to a corresponding processing unit of a plurality of processing units in the message archiving and processing engine ([0027, transmitting information for use by an executable procedure or an information device, and/or by routing the information to an output device. For example, a processor may use or include the capabilities of a controller or microprocessor.], routing/transmitting messages).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the elective fling date to incorporate functionalities of Sauerwald into the system of US Patent ‘615 to have a system which will have nodes to have messages and route messages. US Patent ‘615 and Sauerwald are analogous arts because each art teaches healthcare messages. The motivation would be to have a system which will have nodes to process healthcare messages to organize the messages faster and also to route messages in the archiving processing engine to send the messages faster ([0005, provides healthcare information that is specific and relevant to a particular healthcare department in a format that is user friendly]).
US Patent ‘615 and Sauerwald in combination do not explicitly teach indexing the plurality of electronic messages for querying and retrieval”, “intelligence server”.
However, Lee teaches indexing the plurality of electronic messages for querying and retrieval ([0087, which may be identified by an index. As such, compressed universal message 2120 may include index 2128 to identify a related attribute of modified game data 2124. With this information, server process 2106 may be configured or implemented to modify the synthetic environment.], indexing messages), intelligence server ([0036, artificial intelligence servers, and transaction servers], the intelligence server process messages).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective fling date to incorporate functionalities of Lee into the system of US Patent ‘615 and Sauerwald to have a system which will index data and also to have an intelligence server. US Patent ‘615, Sauerwald/Lee are analogous arts because each art teaches healthcare messages. The motivation would be to have a system which will index the messages and process the messages by intelligence server more efficiently to save time and cost of the system ([0037, hereby providing for improved communications and more secure transactions, among other things]).
Claim 27 corresponds to claim 20 of US Patent ‘615 with differences being similar to the differences in claim 20 above, the differences are obvious for the same rational discussed above.
Claim 34 corresponds to claim 20 of US Patent ‘615 with differences being similar to the differences in claim 20 above, the differences are obvious for the same rational discussed above.
Claims 21, 28, 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,639,615 (hereinafter ‘615) and in view of Sauerwald (US 2005/0043968) and in view of Lee et al. (US 2008/0220873) and in view of Ackermann et al. (US 2002/0188477).
With respect to claim 21, US Patent ‘615, Sauerwald, Lee in combination teach the method of claim 20, but do not explicitly teach wherein communicating the health-related findings to the user comprises, in response to making the health-related findings, transmitting a notification to at least one of the particular patient and a doctor of the particular patient.
However, Ackermann teaches wherein communicating the health-related findings to the user comprises, in response to making the health-related findings, transmitting a notification to at least one of the particular patient and a doctor of the particular patient ([0149, the patient has again failed in step S115 the system can send the appropriate alert to the CDE and/or physician in step S121], [0179, if the patient's performance is satisfactory, the CDE can in step S319 send the patient a message of praise]; examiner's note: the notifications is sent to patient/doctors of the patient). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating sending a message to a patient/doctor of Ackermann into the invention of Sauerwald/Klein/ Lin to send notifications/messages to patient/doctor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective fling date to incorporate functionalities of Ackermann into the system of US Patent ‘615 Sauerwald/Lee to have a system which will send notification patients/doctors. US Patent ‘615, Sauerwald/Lee are analogous arts because each art teaches processing data. The motivation would be to have a system which will alert/notifications/messages to patient/doctor to notify patient/doctor to take actions when needed (Ackermann, [0028, This can improve the quality of patient care in a cost-efficient manner]).
Claim 28 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 21.
Claim 35 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 21.
Claims 22, 29, 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,639,615 (hereinafter ‘615) and in view of Sauerwald (US 2005/0043968) and in view of Lee et al. (US 2008/0220873) and in view of Eisenberger et al. (US 2010/0256994) and in view of Nourie et al. (US 2005/0256380).
With respect to claim 22, US Patent ‘615, Sauerwald, Lee the method of claim 20, but do not explicitly teach wherein mining the collected patient healthcare information extracted from the plurality of received messages to make the health-related findings comprises monitoring changes to the particular patient indicated by the plurality of messages associated with the particular patient and routing the plurality of messages associated with the particular patient through a workflow which is configured to take actions based on a corresponding set of rules.
However, Eisenberger teaches wherein mining the collected patient healthcare information extracted from the plurality of received messages to make the health-related findings comprises monitoring changes to the particular patient indicated by the plurality of messages associated with the particular patient ([0093, the alert receptor 209 can detect a rise in the number of patients admitted for a certain condition and/or identify possible widespread health concerns], [0120, the system can monitor and identify new or unexpected increases in viral], [0122, The monitoring can be used to provide generally real-time disease monitoring for regulatory agencies and/or payors, such as note: the alert messages are routed to the subscribers; each message contains a patient ID).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective fling date to incorporate functionalities of Eisenberger into the system of US Patent ‘615/Sauerwald/Lee to have an efficient system. US Patent ‘615/Sauerwald/Lee/ Eisenberger are analogous art because each art teaches processing data. The motivation would be to have a system which will have updated record for patients’ safety (Eisenberger, [0093], the alert receptor 209 can detect a rise in the number of patients admitted for a certain condition and/or identify possible widespread health concerns).
US Patent, ‘615, Sauerwald, Lee Eisenberger do not explicitly teach routing the plurality of messages associated with the particular patient through a workflow which is configured to take actions based on a corresponding set of rules. Eisenberger teaches routing messages to subscribers in para. [0120] but does not explicitly teach a workflow to take actions based on set of rules.
However, Nourie teaches and routing the plurality of messages associated with the particular patient through a workflow which is configured to take actions based on a corresponding set of rules ([0040, The workflow process may be conducted so that it satisfies the requirements of HIPAA and/or privacy rules dictated by some other law or organization], [0083, The workflow engine 84(b) manages the workflow processes for the patients. As noted above, during the workflow process, various messages may be sent to the coordinator and investigator to prompt them to take specific actions during the patient screening and enrollment processes]; examiner's note: the data is processed through a workflow to take actions based on the rules).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the elective fling date to incorporate functionalities of Nourie into the system of US Patent ‘615/Sauerwald/Lee/Eisenberger to have a workflow to take actions based on set of rules. US Patent ‘615/Sauerwald/Lee/Eisenberger/Nourie are analogous arts because each art teaches processing data. The motivation would be to have a system to have a workflow with set of rules to take appropriate actions for patients to improve health of a patient faster (Nourie, [0053, Preferred embodiments of the invention "electronically govern" the workflow process so that it proceeds in a secure, efficient, and HIPAA compliant manner]).
Claim 29 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 22.
Claim 36 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 22.
Claims 23, 30, 37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,639,615 (hereinafter ‘615) and in view of Sauerwald (US 2005/0043968) and in view of Lee et al. (US 2008/0220873) and in view of Lin (US 2009/0064323).
With respect to claim 23, US Patent ‘615, Sauerwald, Lee the method of claim 20, but do not explicitly teach classifying the plurality of electronic messages according to a stored set of classification rules, wherein the classifying is based on a plurality of different orthogonal axes and wherein the plurality of different orthogonal axes include two or more of: patient identifiers in the messages; ailments recorded in the messages; medications recorded in the messages; or symptoms recorded in the messages.
Sauerwald teaches and wherein the plurality of different orthogonal axes includes two or more of: patient identifiers in the messages; ailments recorded in the messages; medications recorded in the messages; or symptoms recorded in the messages ([0018, (c) radiology, (d) laboratory tests, (e) medication, (f) diet, and (g) therapy], [0020, (g) a patient identifier, and (h) a physician associated the healthcare activity.]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective fling date to incorporate functionalities of Sauerwald into the system of US Patent ‘615/Lee to have a system which will have identifiers of the patient and medication information. US Patent ‘615 and Sauerwald/Lee are analogous arts because each art teaches healthcare messages. The motivation would be to have a system which will have healthcare information of patients to have an efficient system (Sauerwald, [0005, provides healthcare information that is specific and relevant to a particular healthcare department in a format that is user friendly]).
US Patent ‘615, Sauerwald, Lee in combination do not explicitly teach classifying the plurality of electronic messages according to a stored set of classification rules, wherein the classifying is based on a plurality of different orthogonal axes.
However, Lin teaches classifying the plurality of electronic messages according to a stored set of classification rules, wherein the classifying is based on a plurality of different orthogonal axes ([0044, The phrase "spam detection" generally refers to one or more techniques for attempting to identify or classify a message as spam/non-spam or otherwise attempting to determine whether a message is spam/non-spam]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective fling date to incorporate functionalities of Lin into the system of US Patent ‘615/Sauerwald/Lee to have a system which will have a robust system. US Patent ‘615 and Sauerwald/Lee/Lin are analogous arts because each art teaches healthcare messages. The motivation would be to have a system which will classify the messages according to rules to organize the messages more efficiently (Lin, [0025, Empirical evidence confirms spam detection is improved as a result of allowing global intelligence to accumulate and then using such global intelligence to make a local spam determination]).
Claim 30 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 23.
Claim 37 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 23.
Claims 24, 31, 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,639,615 (hereinafter ‘615) and in view of Sauerwald (US 2005/0043968) and in view of Lee et al. (US 2008/0220873) and in view of Rajasenan (US 8,515,777).
With respect to claim 24, US Patent ‘615, Sauerwald, Lee the method of claim 20, but do not explicitly teach wherein analyzing the field values of the collected patient healthcare information extracted from the plurality of received messages to make the health-related findings comprises collecting a plurality of messages associated with a particular patient over a period of time, analyzing the collected plurality of messages associated with the particular patient, and generating a prediction of the particular patient's prognosis.
However, Rajasenan teaches wherein analyzing the field values of the collected patient healthcare information extracted from the plurality of received messages to make the health-related findings comprises collecting a plurality of messages associated with a particular patient over a period of time (col. 11, lines 5-15; examiner's note: data is collected over a period of time), analyzing the collected plurality of messages associated with the particular patient, and generating a prediction of the particular patient's prognosis (col. 11, lines 5-15; examiner's note: data is collected over a period of time to analyze the collected data and will predict a patients prognosis).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective fling date to incorporate functionalities of Rajasenan into the system of US Patent ‘615/Sauerwald/Lee to have a system which will have a robust system. US Patent ‘615 and Sauerwald/Lee/Rajasenan are analogous arts because each art teaches healthcare messages. The motivation would be to have a system which will generate prediction of a prognosis for the particular patient over time to process data appropriately and faster (Rajasenan, [col. 2, lines 15-20, “A healthcare provisioning system according to an embodiment improves efficiency in providing healthcare services. Supply and demand models are analyzed by a healthcare provisioning system to efficiently allocate healthcare supply resources to satisfy healthcare demand”]).
Claim 31 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 24.
Claim 38 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 24.
Claims 25, 26, 32, 33, 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,639,615 (hereinafter ‘615) and in view of Sauerwald (US 2005/0043968) and in view of Eisenberger et al. (US 2010/0256994) and in view of IIiff (US 2002/0002325).
With respect to claim 24, US Patent ‘615, Sauerwald, Lee teaches the method of claim 20, but do not explicitly teach wherein analyzing the field values of the collected patient healthcare information extracted from the plurality of received messages to make the health-related findings comprises: monitoring the plurality of messages; identifying indications of a particular disease in the plurality of messages; determining whether the indications of the particular disease in the plurality of messages meet a threshold condition; in response to determining that the indications of the particular disease in the plurality of messages meet the threshold condition, generating an alert indicative of an outbreak of the particular disease.
However, Eisenberger teaches wherein analyzing the field values of the collected patient healthcare information extracted from the plurality of received messages to make the health-related findings comprises: monitoring the plurality of messages ([0120]; examiner's note: monitoring plurality of messages);
identifying indications of a particular disease in the plurality of messages ([0120]; examiner's note: identifying a disease in the messages);
determining whether the indications of the particular disease in the plurality of messages meet a condition ([0120]; examiner's note: increased mortality rates (condition));
in response to determining that the indications of the particular disease in the plurality of messages meet the condition, generating an alert indicative of an outbreak of the particular disease ([0120]; [0120]; examiner's note: increased mortality rates (condition) generating an alert (message)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective fling date to incorporate functionalities of Eisenberger into the system of US Patent ‘615/Sauerwald/Lee/Eisenberger to identify outbreaks from the messages and altering subscriber’s indicative of an outbreak. US Patent ‘615/Sauerwald/Lee/ Eisenberger are analogous arts because each art teaches processing data. The motivation would be to identify an outbreak and messaging subscribers to alert everyone about the outbreak to prepare for the outbreak to reduce damage of the outbreak (Eisenberger, [0093], the alert receptor 209 can detect a rise in the number of patients admitted for a certain condition and/or identify possible widespread health concerns).
US Patent ‘615/Sauerwald/Lee/Eisenberger do not explicitly teach a threshold.
However, Iliff teaches a threshold ([0230, For example, the faster a disease is approaching the diagnostic threshold, the more intensely the LB method can focus on disease]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective fling date to incorporate functionalities of Iliff into the system of US Patent ‘615/Sauerwald/Lee/Eisenberger to identify outbreaks from the messages by comparing to a threshold. US Patent ‘615/Sauerwald/Lee/ Eisenberger/Iliff are analogous arts because each art teaches processing data. The motivation would be to identify an outbreak by comparing to a threshold to identify the outbreak more accurately and faster to make the system more efficient (Iliff, [0008], These methods involve static procedures or algorithms. What is desired is an automated way of providing to a patient medical advice and diagnosis that is quick, efficient and accurate).
With respect to claim 26, US Patent ‘615, Sauerwald, Lee, lliff teaches the method of claim 26, Iliff further teaches wherein the threshold condition comprises detecting a threshold number of the indications of the particular disease within a selected time period ([0382]; examiner's note: the two or more (threshold) number of indications withing a selected time period).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective fling date to incorporate functionalities of Iliff into the system of US Patent ‘615/Sauerwald/Lee/Eisenberger to have threshold condition to detect a disease. US Patent ‘615/Sauerwald/Lee/ Eisenberger/Iliff are analogous arts because each art teaches processing data. The motivation would be to identify an outbreak by comparing to a threshold to identify the outbreak more accurately and faster to make the system more efficient (Iliff, [0008], These methods involve static procedures or algorithms. What is desired is an automated way of providing to a patient medical advice and diagnosis that is quick, efficient and accurate).
Claim 32 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 25.
Claim 33 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 26.
Claim 39 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 25.
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 20-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following reasons:
Claims 20, 27:
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a "method", “computer program product” and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“for each of the plurality of electronic messages, identifying,
-“indexing the plurality of electronic messages for querying and retrieval” recites a mental process because human mind can index messages by evaluation and judgement of data.
-“mining,
-“identifying a group of messages associated with a particular patient, the group of messages being at least a subset of the plurality of electronic messages” recites a mental process because human mind can identify a group of messages associated with a particular patient by evaluation and judgement.
-“for the collected patient healthcare information extracted from the group of messages associated with the particular patient, analyzing ones of the field values extracted from the group of messages and corresponding to a selected characteristic of the particular patient to generate determine a result trend associated with the selected characteristic of the particular patient, wherein the health-related findings are made based on the result determined trend; and” which is a mental process because human mind can analyze field values from messages to identify/find characteristic of a patient by evaluation and judgement by the data provided.
At Step 2A, Prong two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“message archiving and processing engine”, “a network”, “communication interface”, “a computer program product, comprising a non-transitory computer- readable medium having a computer-readable program code embodied therein, the computer- readable program code adapted to be executed by a processor, the computer-readable program code comprising instructions” which are all a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“software components”, “databases”, “message router of the message archiving and processing engine”, “by an intelligence server”, “repository” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data) and/or a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“capturing, by a message archiving and processing engine of a message mining system connected to a healthcare communication computer network that comprises a plurality nodes, messages between nodes in the plurality of nodes to collect a plurality of electronic messages according to a plurality of different healthcare communication standards for communicating healthcare information between software components, each of the plurality of electronic messages comprising corresponding patient healthcare information formatted according to a particular healthcare information communication standard from the plurality of healthcare information communication standards” recites an insignificant extra solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“routing, by the message router, each of the plurality of electronic messages to a corresponding processing unit of a plurality of processing units in the message archiving and processing engine, the corresponding processing unit associated with the particular healthcare information communication standard according to which that message from the plurality of electronic messages is formatted for message processing” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“automatically obtaining, by the corresponding processing units, the corresponding patient healthcare information from each of the plurality of electronic messages” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“by parsing each of the plurality of electronic messages based on the particular healthcare information communication standard according to which that message from the plurality of electronic messages is formatted to extract field values, as defined by the particular healthcare information communication standard, which comprise the corresponding patient healthcare information, wherein the corresponding patient healthcare information is obtained from each of the plurality of electronic messages and normalized by the corresponding processing unit to which the electronic message was routed by the message router” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data) and/or a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“archiving the plurality of electronic messages using a plurality of databases, wherein archiving the plurality of electronic messages using the plurality of databases comprises archiving each of the plurality of electronic messages in a corresponding one of the plurality of databases which is associated with the particular healthcare information communication standard according to which that message from the plurality of electronic messages is formatted” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“wherein each of the plurality of electronic messages is archived in an unmodified form” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data) and/or a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“collecting, in a repository which is separate from the plurality of databases, patient healthcare information extracted from the plurality of electronic messages, wherein collecting the patient healthcare information from the plurality of electronic messages comprises copying the field values extracted from the plurality of electronic messages into the repository” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“wherein the message mining system provides a single access point for a consuming application to retrieve and mine data across the plurality of electronic messages” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data) and/or a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“communicating, by a communication interface, the health-related findings to a user” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
-The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“capturing, by a message archiving and processing engine of a message mining system connected to a healthcare communication computer network that comprises a plurality nodes, messages between nodes in the plurality of nodes to collect a plurality of electronic messages according to a plurality of different healthcare communication standards for communicating healthcare information between software components, each of the plurality of electronic messages comprising corresponding patient healthcare information formatted according to a particular healthcare information communication standard from the plurality of healthcare information communication standards” is well-known, routine and conventional activities (WURC) see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
-“routing, by the message router, each of the plurality of electronic messages to a corresponding processing unit of a plurality of processing units in the message archiving and processing engine, the corresponding processing unit associated with the particular healthcare information communication standard according to which that message from the plurality of electronic messages is formatted for message processing” is well-known, routine and conventional activities (WURC) see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
-“automatically obtaining, by the corresponding processing units, the corresponding patient healthcare information from each of the plurality of electronic messages” is well-known, routine and conventional activities (WURC) see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
-“by parsing each of the plurality of electronic messages based on the particular healthcare information communication standard according to which that message from the plurality of electronic messages is formatted to extract field values, as defined by the particular healthcare information communication standard, which comprise the corresponding patient healthcare information, wherein the corresponding patient healthcare information is obtained from each of the plurality of electronic messages and normalized by the corresponding processing unit to which the electronic message was routed by the message router” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data) and/or a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“archiving the plurality of electronic messages using a plurality of databases, wherein archiving the plurality of electronic messages using the plurality of databases comprises archiving each of the plurality of electronic messages in a corresponding one of the plurality of databases which is associated with the particular healthcare information communication standard according to which that message from the plurality of electronic messages is formatted” is well-known, routine and conventional activities (WURC) see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
-“wherein each of the plurality of electronic messages is archived in an unmodified form” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data) and/or a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“collecting, in a repository which is separate from the plurality of databases, patient healthcare information extracted from the plurality of electronic messages, wherein collecting the patient healthcare information from the plurality of electronic messages comprises copying the field values extracted from the plurality of electronic messages into the repository” is well-known, routine and conventional activities (WURC) see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
-“wherein the message mining system provides a single access point for a consuming application to retrieve and mine data across the plurality of electronic messages” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data) and/or a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“communicating, by a communication interface, the health-related findings to a user” is well-known, routine and conventional activities (WURC) see MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il) and/or "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 34
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a "system" and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“parse messages routed to that message processor to extract corresponding patient healthcare information from the messages routed to that message processor, wherein extracting the corresponding patient healthcare information comprises extracting, from the messages routed to that message processor, field values, as defined by the healthcare information communication standard associated with that message processor, which comprise the corresponding patient healthcare information” which is a mental process because human mind can parse messages by extracting field values by evaluation and judgement by the data provided.
-“normalize the corresponding patient information” recites a mental process because human mind can normalize information by evaluation and judgment of data.
-“comprising repository comprises:” recites a mental process because human mind can mine data by evaluation and judgement of data.
-“identifying a plurality of messages associated with a particular patient” recites a mental process because human mind can identify a group of messages associated with a particular patient by evaluation and judgement.
-“identifying a plurality of messages associated with a particular patient” recites a mental process because human mind can identify messages associated with a particular patient by evaluation and judgment of data.
-“and analyzing the collected patient healthcare information extracted from the plurality of messages associated with a particular patient, where analyzing the collected patient healthcare information extracted from the plurality of messages associated with a particular patient comprises analyzing the field values extracted from the plurality of messages and corresponding to a selected characteristic of the particular patient to generate determine a result” which is a mental process because human mind can analyze field values from messages to identify/find characteristic of a patient by evaluation and judgement by the data provided.
At Step 2A, Prong two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“a network interface to connect to a network”, “storage”, “hardware processor coupled to the network interface and storage”, “a memory coupled to the hardware processor, the memory storing software code executable by the hardware processor to implement a processor-based database management system, the processor-based database management system” a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“that provides a single access point for a consuming application to retrieve and mine data across electronic messages according to a plurality of different healthcare information communication standards”; “a plurality of different message archive databases, the plurality of archive databases comprising a respective database for each of a plurality of different healthcare information communication standards for communicating healthcare information between software components”, “a patient healthcare information repository that is separate from the plurality of databases”, “a plurality of different message processors, each of the plurality of message processors having a healthcare information communication standard from the plurality of different healthcare information communication standards associated therewith and executable to:”; “an intelligence server”; “a message router”, are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data) and/or a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“archive the messages routed to that message processor as archived messages in the respective message archive database for the healthcare information communication standard associated with that message processor” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“wherein each of the plurality of messages is archived in an unmodified form” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
-“and store the corresponding patient healthcare information extracted from the messages routed to that message processor to the patient healthcare repository” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“a message router executable to route messages received over the network to the plurality of message processors based on a particular healthcare information communication standard according to which each of the received messages is formatted” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“a user interface for communicating the health-related findings to a user via the network interface” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'data outputting'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
At Step 2B:
-The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“that provides a single access point for a consuming application to retrieve and mine data across electronic messages according to a plurality of different healthcare information communication standards”; “a plurality of different message archive databases, the plurality of archive databases comprising a respective database for each of a plurality of different healthcare information communication standards for communicating healthcare information between software components”, “a patient healthcare information repository that is separate from the plurality of databases”, “a plurality of different message processors, each of the plurality of message processors having a healthcare information communication standard from the plurality of different healthcare information communication standards associated therewith and executable to:”; “an intelligence server”; “a message router”, are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data) and/or a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“archive the messages routed to that message processor as archived messages in the respective message archive database for the healthcare information communication standard associated with that message processor” is well-known, routine and conventional activities (WURC) see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
-“wherein each of the plurality of messages is archived in an unmodified form” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
-“and store the corresponding patient healthcare information extracted from the messages routed to that message processor to the patient healthcare repository” is well-known, routine and conventional activities (WURC) see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
-“a message router executable to route messages received over the network to the plurality of message processors based on a particular healthcare information communication standard according to which each of the received messages is formatted” is well-known, routine and conventional activities (WURC) see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
-“a user interface for communicating the health-related findings to a user via the network interface” is well-known, routine and conventional activities (WURC) see MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il) and/or "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 21, 28, 35:
At Step 2A, Prong two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“in response to making the health-related findings, transmitting a notification according to one or more user configurable workflows to at least one of the particular patient or a doctor of the particular patient over the network” recites an insignificant extra solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
At Step 2B:
-The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
- “in response to making the health-related findings, transmitting a notification according to one or more user configurable workflows to at least one of the particular patient or a doctor of the particular patient over the network” is WURC see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 22, 29, 36:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitation directed to an abstract idea:
-“mining the collected patient healthcare information to make the health-related findings, comprises monitoring changes to the particular patient indicated by the group of messages associated with the particular patient” is a mental process because human mind can monitor data changes by evaluation and judgement of the data.
At Step 2A, Prong two:
The claim recites the following additional element:
-“and routing the group of messages associated with the particular patient through an automated workflow which is configured to take actions based on a corresponding set of rules” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
At Step 2B:
-The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
- “routing the group of messages associated with the particular patient through an automated workflow which is configured to take actions based on a corresponding set of rules” is WURC see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 23, 30, 37:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“classifying the plurality of electronic messages according to a stored set of classification rules, wherein the classifying is based on a plurality of different orthogonal axes and” recites a mental process because human mind can classify electronic messages by evaluation and judgment of data.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the plurality of different orthogonal axes include two or more of: patient identifiers in the messages; ailments recorded in the messages; medications recorded in the messages; or symptoms recorded in the messages” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
-The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“wherein the plurality of different orthogonal axes include two or more of: patient identifiers in the messages; ailments recorded in the messages; medications recorded in the messages; or symptoms recorded in the messages” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 24, 31, 38:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following abstract idea:
-“and wherein the ones of the field values extracted from the group of messages are analyzed to generate a prediction of a prognosis for the particular patient” is a mental process because human mind can predict a prognosis based on observation and evaluation of data provided by analyzing the message data.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the group of messages associated with the particular patient are collected over a period of time” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
-The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“wherein the group of messages associated with the particular patient are collected over a period of time” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 25, 32, 39:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
- “monitoring the group of messages” recites a mental process because human mind can monitor groups of messages by looking at the data provided by evaluating and judging the messages/data.
-“identifying indications of a particular disease in the group of messages” recites a mental process because human mind can identify indication of a particular disease in a group of messages by evaluating and judging the data.
-“determining whether the indications of the particular disease in the group of messages meet a threshold condition” recites a mental process because human mind can determine whether the indications of the particular disease in the group messages meet a threshold condition by evaluating and judging the data.
-“and in response to determining that the indications of the particular disease in the group of messages meet the threshold condition, generating an alert indicative of an outbreak of the particular disease” recites a mental process because human mind can generate an alert by determining that the particular disease meets a threshold condition.
Claims 26, 33:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“wherein the threshold condition comprises detecting a threshold number of the indications of the particular disease within a selected time period” recites a mental process because human mind can detect a threshold number of the indications within a selected time period by evaluating and judging the data.
Prior arts consideration
Prior art rejections are not cited for claims 20-39.
Prior arts of record Sauerwald (US 2005/0043968) teaches message data in HL7 format and extracting fields from the messages in paragraphs [0018, 0034].
Klein (US 2002/0194026) teaches storing HL7 messages in a database and plurality of databases in paragraphs [0032].
Ben-Sira (US 2011/0301478) teaches plurality of format i.e. HL7 and DICOM format in paragraph [0034].
Klotzer (US 2013/0132490) teaches plurality of Health care server in paragraph [0032].
Lee et al. (US 2008/0220873) teaches indexing and artificial intelligence servers in paragraph [0037].
Prior arts of records do not explicitly teach “capturing, by a message archiving and processing engine of a message mining system connected to a healthcare communication computer network that comprises a plurality nodes, messages between nodes in the plurality of nodes to collect a plurality of electronic messages according to a plurality of different healthcare communication standards for communicating healthcare information between software components, each of the plurality of electronic messages comprising corresponding patient healthcare information formatted according to a particular healthcare information communication standard from the plurality of healthcare information communication standards; automatically obtaining, by the corresponding processing [[unit]]units, the corresponding patient healthcare information from each of the plurality of electronic messages by parsing each of the plurality of electronic messages based on the particular healthcare information communication standard according to which that message from the plurality of electronic messages is formatted to extract field values, as defined by the particular healthcare information communication standard, which comprise the corresponding patient healthcare information, wherein the corresponding patient healthcare information is obtained from each of the plurality of electronic messages and normalized by the corresponding processing unit to which the electronic message was routed by the message router; archiving the plurality of electronic messages using a plurality of databases, wherein archiving the plurality of electronic messages using the plurality of databases comprises archiving each of the plurality of electronic messages in a corresponding one of the plurality of databases which is associated with the particular healthcare information communication standard according to which that message from the plurality of electronic messages is formatted, wherein each of the plurality of electronic messages is archived in an unmodified form; indexing the plurality of electronic messages for querying and retrieval: mining, by an intelligence server, the collected patient healthcare information extracted from the plurality of electronic messages to make health-related findings, wherein automatically analyzing mining the collected patient healthcare information to make the health-related findings further comprises: identifying a group of messages associated with a particular patient, the group of messages being at least a subset of the plurality of electronic messages; for the collected patient healthcare information extracted from the group of messages associated with the particular patient, analyzing ones of the field values extracted from the group of messages and corresponding to a selected characteristic of the particular patient to generate determine a result trend associated with the selected characteristic of the particular patient, wherein the health-related findings are made based on the result determined trend” as recited in independent claims 20 and 27 and the limitations “a memory coupled to the hardware processor, the memory storing software code executable by the hardware processor to implement a processor-based database management system that provides a single access point for a consuming application to retrieve and mine data across electronic messages according to a plurality of different healthcare information communication standards, the processor-based database management system comprising: parse messages routed to that message processor to extract corresponding patient healthcare information from the messages routed to that message processor, wherein extracting the corresponding patient healthcare information comprises extracting, from the messages routed to that message processor, field values, as defined by the healthcare information communication standard associated with that message processor, which comprise the corresponding patient healthcare information; normalize the corresponding patient information; archive the messages routed to that message processor as archived messages in the respective message archive database for the healthcare information communication standard associated with that message processor, wherein the messages routed to the message processor are archived in an unmodified form; and store the corresponding patient healthcare information extracted from the messages routed to that message processor to the patient healthcare repository; an intelligence server executable to automatically mine collected patient healthcare information from the patient healthcare repository to make the health-related findings, analyzing wherein mining the collected patient healthcare information from the patient healthcare comprising repository comprises: identifying a plurality of messages associated with a particular patient; and analyzing the collected patient healthcare information extracted from the plurality of messages associated with a particular patient, where analyzing the collected patient healthcare information extracted from the plurality of messages associated with a particular patient comprises analyzing the field values extracted from the plurality of messages and corresponding to a selected characteristic of the particular patient to generate determine a result; and communicating trend associated with the selected characteristic of the particular patient , wherein the health-related findings to a user via the network interface are made based on the determined trend” as recited in independent claim 34.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATIMA P MINA whose telephone number is (571)270-3556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Ann Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. 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.
/FATIMA P MINA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights