Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prosecution History Summary
Claims 2-4 and 17-18 are cancelled.
Claims 26-29 are new.
Claims 1, 5-6, 14, and 19-20 are amended.
Claims 1, 5-16, and 19-29 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 5-16, and 19-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1, 5-13, 21-24), machine (claims 14-16 and 19), and article of manufacture (claim 20). Accordingly, claims 1, 5-16, and 19-29 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method performed by one or more hardware processors, the computer-implemented method comprising:
-detecting, by at least one of the one or more hardware processors associated with a healthcare cloud computing platform (HCCP) and an electronic database at the HCCP, a triggering activity;
-simultaneously performing, by a record retrieval module, in parallel, and without user intervention:
(a) plugging into, via a first application program interface (API), first medical data from a first remote database disparate from the HCCP;
(b) loading, via the first API, first medical data from the first remote database into the HCCP;
(c) plugging into via a second API, a second remote database disparate from the HCCP; and
(d) loading, via the second API, second medical data from the second remote database into the HCCP;
-reading the first medical data for detecting a presence of information associated with: (i) a medical concept, (ii) a patient associated with the triggering activity, the triggering activity corresponding to a registration event of the patient, a admission event of the patient, a transfer events of the patient, a discharge event of the patient, or a combination thereof, and (iii) a first set of multiple medical properties that relate to the medical concept and that include at least a first patient identifier;
-reading the second medical data for detecting a presence of information associated with: the medical concept, the patient, and a second set of multiple medical properties that relate to the medical concept and that include at least a second patient identifier;
-mapping by the one or more hardware processors, the first medical data and the second medical data to first normalized data based on the first set of multiple medical properties and to second normalized data based on the second set of multiple medical properties, respectively;
-matching the first patient identifier to the second patient identifier using the electronic database in the HCCP;
-accessing ranking rules for the medical concept from the HCCP; and
-in response to applying the ranking rules to the first normalized data and the second normalized data to select the first medical data from a group comprising the first medical data and the second medical data for writing to the healthcare cloud computing platform;
-determining, via the one or more hardware processors and in response to the applying, that content indicating the first medical data is to be stored on the healthcare cloud computing platform;
-storing, via the one or more hardware processors and in response to the determining, the content in a primary medical record for the patient on the HCCP; and
-refraining from storing, via the one or more hardware processors in response to the determining, any content based on the second medical data to the primary medical record for the patient on the HCCP.
Examiner states submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: “certain methods of organizing human activity” because applying ranking rules to medical data that is normalized and storing in a patients record is same as following rules or instructions.
Furthermore, the foregoing underlined limitation constitute: a “mental process” because reading medical data from multiple sources and matching identifiers and applying ranking rules can all be performed in the human mind.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether
the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP
§$2106.04(1D(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond
the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements
merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution
activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment
or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP
§2106.05(1(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract
idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional
limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A computer-implemented method performed by one or more hardware processors, the computer-implemented method comprising:
-detecting, by at least one of the one or more hardware processors (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 24, 26, 28) associated with a healthcare cloud computing platform (HCCP) and an electronic database at the HCCP (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 27-28), a triggering activity;
-simultaneously performing, by a record retrieval module, in parallel, and without user intervention:
(a) plugging into, via a first application program interface (API), first medical data from a first remote database disparate from the HCCP (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 34);
(b) loading, via the first API, first medical data from the first remote database into the HCCP (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 34);
(c) plugging into via a second API, a second remote database disparate from the HCCP (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 34); and
(d) loading, via the second API, second medical data from the second remote database into the HCCP (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 34);
-reading the first medical data for detecting a presence of information associated with: (i) a medical concept, (ii) a patient associated with the triggering activity, the triggering activity corresponding to a registration event of the patient, a admission event of the patient, a transfer events of the patient, a discharge event of the patient, or a combination thereof, and (iii) a first set of multiple medical properties that relate to the medical concept and that include at least a first patient identifier;
-reading the second medical data for detecting a presence of information associated with: the medical concept, the patient, and a second set of multiple medical properties that relate to the medical concept and that include at least a second patient identifier;
-mapping by the one or more hardware processors, the first medical data and the second medical data to first normalized data based on the first set of multiple medical properties and to second normalized data based on the second set of multiple medical properties, respectively;
-matching the first patient identifier to the second patient identifier using the electronic database in the HCCP (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 26-27, 30);
-accessing ranking rules for the medical concept from the HCCP (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 26-27, 30); and
-in response to applying the ranking rules to the first normalized data and the second normalized data to select the first medical data from a group comprising the first medical data and the second medical data for writing to the healthcare cloud computing platform (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 26-27, 30);
-determining, via the one or more hardware processors and in response to the applying (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 24, 26, 28), that content indicating the first medical data is to be stored on the healthcare cloud computing platform;
-storing, via the one or more hardware processors (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 24, 26, 28) and in response to the determining, the content in a primary medical record for the patient on the HCCP (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 26-27, 30); and
-refraining from storing, via the one or more hardware processors (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 24, 26, 28) in response to the determining, any content based on the second medical data to the primary medical record for the patient on the HCCP (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 26-27, 30).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claims 14 and 20 and analogous independent claim 1 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, representative independent claims 14 and 20 and analogous independent claim 1 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 5, 16: The claim specifies matching database identifier and determining if the first medical data should be stored in the primary medical record based on determining if it’s a trusted source, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 6: The claim specifies performing parallel reads and transformation utilizing state transformation of databases, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 7, 18: The claim specifies transforming based on FHIR under HL7 standards, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 8-9, 19: The claim specifies the remote database associations which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the use of at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 10: The claim specifies medical concepts, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 11: The claim specifies medical properties, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 12: The claim specifies access to data on the healthcare computing platform, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 13: The claim specifies primary medical record from databases and data on healthcare computing platform, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 15: The claim specifies the multiple medical properties, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 16: The claim specifies determining if the database identifier is a trusted source (mental process) using a healthcare cloud computing platform, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 21: The claim specifies trigger that is non-periodic and performing loading of medical data, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 22: The claim specifies comparing medical properties to detect duplicates, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 23: The claim specifies determining patient identity, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 24: The claim specifies medical concept associations, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 25: The claim specifies performing parallel reads of medical data from remote databases and performing transformations based on state data, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 26: The claim specifies after storing, writing information into a remote database to a provenance module, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 27: The claim specifies programming hardware processor to identify the triggering activity, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 28: The claim specifies programming processor to identify the triggering activity and monitor automatically via a state machine electronic data, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 29: The claim specifies programming processor to identify registration event, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, when the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims 1, 14, and 20 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as loading medical data from remote database disparate from healthcare cloud computing, accessing ranking rules, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); reading first and second medical data from first and second databases, mapping medical data, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv); storing the content, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 6, 12, 21, 25, and 26-29, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claims 12 (providing access to data), 21(loading medical data) e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claims 6, 25 (parallel reads and transformation of medical data), 26 (writing information to a provenance module), 27, 28, 29 (programming), e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1, 5-16, and 19-29 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 3/30/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 5-16, and 19-29 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed for 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that no human activity is recited or described in the claim as being organized. Examiner states that reading, mapping, and analyzing data can all be performed in the mind while using computer as a generic tool.
Applicant argues that the combination of operations utilizes processors which cannot be performed in the mind. Steps that may be performed in the mind, even if recited as being performed on a computer, are mental processes. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting, in holding that the claim recites an abstract idea, that “with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally, or with pen and paper”).
Applicant argues that the current claim provides an improvement in technology because typical loading techniques are performed according to preset loading frequencies and current claims provide an improvement to conserve power. Examiner states that Applicant should provide objective evidence regarding the improvement and provide support within the specification for claiming the improvement.
Applicant argues that mapping, ranking, and refraining, steps describe technical improvements. Examiner disagrees. The present invention solves the problem associated with matching records, which is not a problem of technical nature, but an administrative problem solved by a scheme. The present application does not involve more than a generic utilization of well-known functions of a computer, including the particular arrangement/combination of functions, and therefore does not involve any invention or ingenuity in any program or operation of a computer, or implementation by a computer to operate the method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rogers et al. – U.S. Patent No. 8,898,798 – Teaches a system for reintegrating medical information based on validation of sources.
Sundararaman et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2019/0384849 – Teaches a system for converting data files, standardizing data elements, and mapping data.
Friedlander et al. – U.S. Patent No. 8,495,069 – Teaches a system for determining a weighted score for attributes from multiple records and compare and merge the records.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached on (571) 272-4530. 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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights