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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 has been reviewed and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on 1-20-26 has been entered and are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the amended claim overcomes the rejection since it recites a set of technical specific active steps that reflect that systems dynamic behavior based on user specific interaction history and therefore align closely with rationale 23, Claim 4. Example 23, automatically relocating the scaled textual information to the unobscured portion of the first window in a second format during an overlap condition so that the entire scaled textual information is viewable on the computer screen by the user, the instant clam rearranges the updated medical record from by age from top to bottom, which is done in reports/records/summary. Unlike the example, the instant claim does not automatically relocating the scaled textual information, by a processor, to the unobscured portion of the first window in a second format during an overlap condition so that the entire scaled textual information is viewable on the computer screen by the user; and automatically returning the relocated scaled textual information, by the processor, to the first format within the first window when the overlap condition no longer exists, rather it arranges the content to display the update in a particular order by having the newest content on top and then once the newest content is viewed it removes the visual indicator of the medical record, which is still an interaction between a user and the system. Per the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) recites “the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are drawn to a method, non-transitory computer implemented method and system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 1, 11 and 18 recite “receiving an update to a medical record”, “determining using a rule set that one or more authorized users should be notified of the update”, “generating a notification for the one or more authorized users corresponding to the update”, “authenticating the one or more authorized users”, “after authenticating one or more authorized users generating visual indicator to emphasize the update to the medical record relative to older information in the medical record”, “generating wherein the visual indication comprises determining based on a timestamp of a previous interaction by a respective authorized user with the health portal one or more potions of the medical record that was previously viewed”, “identifying the update as new information relative to the previously viewed portions”, “rearranging content to display the update in a position above the previously viewed portions of the medical record”, “generating the visual indicator”.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
That the abstract idea may be performed by specifically “graphical user interface”, “non transitory computer readable medium”, “processor”, “memory”, “health portal”, “GUI”, “feedback element in the GUI”, “wherein the GUI is accessible by the one or more authorized users in real time”, and are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claims recite the additional element of “generating a graphical user interface and displayed in the GUI”, “converting the GUI from the first display format to a second display format”, “wherein in the second display format the update is displayed in a top section of the GUI with a visual highlight, and the previously viewed portions of the medical record are displayed in a bottom section, below the top section, of the GUI” “upon determining that the update has been viewed by the one or more authorized users, converting the GUI from the second display format back to the first display format, wherein, in the first display format, the visual indicator is removed, and the update is no longer in the position above the previously viewed portions of the medical record” which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed receiving limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion
- paragraph 28 that “the health portal 140 is part of a health provider's app executing on the authorized person's smartphone or tablet computer, the person 170 may already be logged in and preauthorized to access the health portal 140”,
-paragraph 87 “a computing system 800, which may be used to implement the automated notification system 100 in FIG. 1 (e.g., a computer, a laptop, a tablet, a smartphone, web server, data center, cloud computing environment, etc.), or any other computing device described in the present disclosure”.
The claims recite the additional element of “generating a graphical user interface and displayed in the GUI”, “converting the GUI from the first display format to a second display format”, “wherein in the second display format the update is displayed in a top section of the GUI with a visual highlight, and the previously viewed portions of the medical record are displayed in a bottom section, below the top section, of the GUI” “upon determining that the update has been viewed by the one or more authorized users, converting the GUI from the second display format back to the first display format, wherein, in the first display format, the visual indicator is removed, and the update is no longer in the position above the previously viewed portions of the medical record” which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed receiving limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-10, 12-17, 19-20 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein. 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 additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
Conclusion
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 REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached on (571) 270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights