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 1-26, 53 and 94-99 has been examined and are addressed below. Claims 27-52 and 54-93 has been cancelled.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on 4-13-26 has been entered and are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the claims do not fall for certain methods of organizing human activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim is directed to a patient’s data, identifying disease code for that particular patient, and drug code for treatment of said patient, determining a diagnosis and assigning a cohorts of said patient. These are activities based on said patient. Additionally MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II “, 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.”
Applicant argues that the claims do not fall under mental process since the amended claims include computerized components and systems. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The generic computer components are used to execute the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are one or more additional elements that integrated any alleged judicial exception into a practical application and refers to Cardionet and indicates that nothing within the applicant’s specification indicates that the claimed steps can be performed in any practical sense, in fact the information being analyzed can involve up to hundreds of thousands of patients. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps can be performed by a person (mental process) since the claim only pertains to a specific patient, it is not performing the steps for hundreds of thousands of patients simultaneously. The claims also pertains to analyzing patient data using a computer and according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II “, 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.”
Applicant argues that the claim improves the functioning of a computer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The computer is used to execute the abstract idea. Paragraph 219 in applicant’s specification recite “computing machine 1700 may be a specialized computer, a personal computer (PC), a tablet PC, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile telephone, a smart phone, a web appliance, a network router, switch or bridge, or any machine capable of executing instructions (sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that machine”.
Applicant refers to Example 42 however, unlike the instant claim, in combination Example 42 gathers date from disparate platforms where it then standardizes the format, then generates a notification in real time that a new data is available which it then sends to all the network users, the amended claims do not perform the notification of all users in the network.
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 1-26, 53, 94-99 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.
Step 1:
Claims 1-26, 53, 94-99 are drawn to method and system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1, 21 and 53 recite “accessing storing data for a given patient from among a plurality of patients, storing pharmacy data, medical office visit data and medical insurance transaction data”, “identifying based on one or more disease codes in the medical office visit data or the medical insurance transaction data, one or more biological conditions and a metastatic state for the given patient”, “identifying based on one or more drug codes in the pharmacy data, one or more lines of treatment given for the patient”, “identifying based on one or more insurance codes in the medical insurance transaction data, one or more medical procedures undergone by the given patient”, “determining in real time based on a presence or an absence of the one or more disease codes, the one or more insurance codes or a combination associated with the given patient, a confidence level associated with inclusion of the given patient within a cohort of patients, the one or more drug codes, the one or more insurance codes or a combination”, “determining based on the one or more biological conditions the metastatic stated, the one or more lines of treatment, the one or more medical procedures or a combination thereof, a primary diagnosis biological condition fort the given patient”, “assigning based on the primary biological condition and the confidence level meeting a threshold, the given patient to the cohort of patients”, “sending an output signal representing the assigned cohort for the given patient to one or more users associated with a network in real time”.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity by identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally the limitations can also be interpreted as mental process. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The additional elements 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).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. That the abstract idea may be performed by specifically “one or more computing machines”, “processing circuitry”, “memory”, “one or more medical repositories”, “one or more devices of a plurality of devices over the network”, 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).
The claims recite the additional element of “accessing, at the processing circuitry, one or more medical data repositories storing data for a given patient from among a plurality of patients, the one or more medical data repositories storing pharmacy data, medical office visit data, and medical insurance transaction data”, “providing an output”, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 219 recites that “a computing machine 1700 in accordance with some implementations. In some implementations, components of the computing machine 1700 may store or be integrated into other components shown in the circuit block diagram of FIG. 17. For example, portions of the computing machine 1700 may reside in the processor 1702 and may be referred to as “processing circuitry.” Processing circuitry may include processing hardware, for example, one or more central processing units (CPUs), one or more graphics processing units (GPUs), and the like. In alternative implementations, the computing machine 1700 may operate as a standalone device or may be connected (e.g., networked) to other computers. In a networked deployment, the computing machine 1700 may operate in the capacity of a server, a client, or both in server-client network environments. In an example, the computing machine 1700 may act as a peer machine in peer-to-peer (P2P) (or other distributed) network environment. In this document, the phrases P2P, device-to-device (D2D) and sidelink may be used interchangeably. The computing machine 1700 may be a specialized computer, a personal computer (PC), a tablet PC, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile telephone, a smart phone, a web appliance, a network router, switch or bridge, or any machine capable of executing instructions (sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that machine.”.
The claims recite the additional element of “accessing, at the processing circuitry, one or more medical data repositories storing data for a given patient from among a plurality of patients, the one or more medical data repositories storing pharmacy data, medical office visit data, and medical insurance transaction data”, “providing an output”, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
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) 2-20, 22-26, 94-99 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.
Conclusion
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 at (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