DETAILED ACTION
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims do not end with a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1 – 8), machine (claims 9 – 15), and manufacture (claims 16 – 20) which recite the abstract idea steps of
receiving a request to verify the medical metric of the patient, wherein the request comprises an identification of the patient;
querying, using the identification of the patient, a file to determine the medical metric of the patient, wherein the file includes medical information pertaining to the patient, and the medical information is endorsed by a medical personnel associated with causing the medical information; and
providing the medical metric.
It should be emphasized that this invention is not directed towards the creation of a blockchain. Rather the blockchain is described at a high level using generic terms as in paragraph 351, “The blockchain may include a permissioned blockchain, a federated blockchain, a distributed blockchain, a private blockchain, a hybrid blockchain, and/or the like.” The blockchain is used as a technological tool, in paragraph 56, to manage content or in paragraph 59 managing clinical content.
These steps of claims 1 – 20, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the computing language, receiving and presenting in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. Similarly, the limitation of querying, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the processor language, by a node of a ledger in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These steps of claims 1 – 20, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) begins with
The phrase “methods of organizing human activity” is used to describe concepts relating to:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The section continues with:
The term “certain” qualifies the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping as a reminder of several important points. First, not all methods of organizing human activity are abstract ideas (e.g., “a defined set of steps for combining particular ingredients to create a drug formulation” is not a certain "method of organizing human activity”), In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160-61, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Second, this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3). Finally, 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. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.
It should be emphasized here that “managing personal behavior” “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.”
The claim, as a whole, and described within the Specification follows this idea of managing personal behavior. The invention focuses upon the interaction of a user with a computer regarding a patient. The invention ends with, “provide the medical metric to the computing device to cause the computing device to perform a responsive action based on the medical metric.” This user, patient, computer interaction is described in paragraph 4 as, “The method may include querying, using the identification of the patient, the distributed ledger to determine the medical metric of the patient, wherein the distributed ledger comprises at least one block including medical information pertaining to the patient, and the medical information is endorsed by a medical personnel associated with causing the medical information to be stored in the block. The method may include providing the medical metric to the computing device to cause the computing device to perform a responsive action based on the medical metric.”
The invention, as stated in paragraph 465, is “a method for performing on demand verification of a medical metric of patient…” The claimed and disclosed method applies technology to the abstract idea of patient verification “using a distributed ledger at one or more nodes of a network of the distributed ledger.” The invention applies technology to the abstract idea to obtain all the benefits of applying the technology to the abstract idea. The result of the claimed and disclosed invention is data (verification). That data has a potential usage but the invention has no practical application.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2 – 8, 10 – 15, and 17 – 20, reciting particular aspects of how patient verification may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of a computing device amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of receiving amounts to mere data gathering, recitation of querying.. amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, recitation of providing the medical metric amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 8, 10 – 15, and 17 – 20, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). 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 and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/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 claims 1 – 20; verifying a metric, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii))
Additional elements
tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium - paragraph 547
storing instructions – paragraph 360
blockchain with nodes – paragraph 351 and 352
computer – paragraph 546
network – paragraph 92
bar code/ QR code – paragraph 479
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 2 – 8, 10 – 15, and 17 – 20, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, data verification, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)). 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 – 7, 9, 12 – 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tran, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0268260.
As per claim 1,
Tran teaches a method for providing on demand verifiability of a medical metric for a patient using a distributed ledger (It should be emphasized that the Specification does not state what a medical metric is or what a medical metric must be. There are some examples provided in paragraphs 474 and 490 however there is nothing that describes how to delineate something that is a medical metric from something that is not a medical metric. Therefore, the Examiner understands medical metric broadly as any value related to medical), the method comprising:
receiving (paragraph 248),
by a node that is part of a network of nodes with access to the distributed ledger (paragraphs 247 – 249 ledger with paragraph 244 discussing the distributed of data using nodes),
a request to verify the medical metric of the patient (paragraph 241 –verifying sufficient token quantity or paragraph 249 digital signature for verifying patient identity),
wherein the request comprises an identification of the patient (paragraphs 248 and 249), and
the request is received from a computing device (paragraph 246 IOT device);
querying (paragraphs 249 - 252),
using the identification of the patient (paragraphs 249, 250),
the distributed ledger to determine the medical metric of the patient (paragraphs 249 and 251),
wherein the distributed ledger comprises at least one block including medical information pertaining to the patient (paragraphs 249 and 252), and
the medical information is endorsed by a medical personnel associated with causing the medical information to be stored in the block (paragraphs 241, 242 smart contract/ CMS, paragraph 248 and 250 PPR smart contract held by care provider – Regarding “endorse,” there are two patent related questions because of preventing others from making and using. The first question is what is an endorsement? The second question is what does an endorsement do? Because utility patents protect the functional operation of a patent, what endorsement does is more important. Specifically, what can a transaction do after receiving the endorsement or conversely, what can’t a transaction do without an endorsement. The Specification does not ascribe any resultant function to “endorse” and therefore the Examiner understands this as a label. Further, there is no disclosed step of how “endorse” occurs. This could be performed by “medical personnel” stating allowed that it is “endorsed” and fall within the claim and disclosure); and
providing the medical metric to the computing device to cause the computing device to perform a responsive action based on the medical metric (paragraphs 249 – 252).
As per claim 4, Tran teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Tran further teaches the method wherein the identification is a Quick Response (QR) code (paragraph 276).
As per claim 5, Tran teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Tran further teaches the method wherein the request is received from the computing device of an official, regulator, security personnel, or some combination thereof (paragraph 224).
As per claim 6, Tran teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Tran further teaches the method
wherein the medical information comprises information pertaining to a medical test performed for the patient, a medical metric pertaining to the patient, a result of the medical test performed for the patient, a license of the medical personnel, a degree of the medical personnel, a timestamp of the medical information, or some combination thereof (paragraphs 248 and 249).
As per claim 7, Tran teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Tran further teaches the method wherein the medical metric provided to the computing device lacks a value and comprises a general status of good or bad (figure 7E and paragraph 237 “approve” or “send a message” – where “good” is understood to be “approve” and “bad” is understood to be “send a message”).
As per claim 9,
Tran teaches a system comprising:
a memory device storing instructions (paragraph 158);
a processing device communicatively coupled to the memory device (Paragraphs 224 and 228), the processing device executes the instructions perform the steps as described above in claim 1.
As per claim 12, Tran teaches the system of claim 9 as described above.
Tran further teaches the system as described above in claim 4.
As per claim 13, Tran teaches the system of claim 9 as described above.
Tran further teaches the system as described above in claim 5.
As per claim 14, Tran teaches the system of claim 9 as described above.
Tran further teaches the system as described above in claim 6.
As per claim 15, Tran teaches the system of claim 9 as described above.
Tran further teaches the system as described above in claim 7.
As per claim 16,
Tran teaches a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processing device to perform the steps as described above in claim 1.
As per claim 19, Tran teaches the device of claim 16 as described above.
Tran further teaches the device as described above in claim 4.
As per claim 20, Tran teaches the device of claim 16 as described above.
Tran further teaches the device as described above in claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0268260 in view of Webber et al U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2021/ 0142916.
As per claim 2, Tran teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Tran does not explicitly teach however, Webber further teaches the method comprising:
• receiving a query to view a trust chain associated with the medical metric (paragraph 152); and
• providing the trust chain associated with the medical metric to the computing device (paragraph 152 trust page).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add these features into Tran. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have added these features into Tran with the motivation to identify, using a categorization process, one or more evidentiary elements relevant to the case being adjudicated and displaying information at a graphical user interface, the information including a view of a history, progression and a status of a medical condition associated with the case being adjudicated (Webber, Abstract).
As per claim 10, Tran teaches the system of claim 9 as described above.
Tran does not explicitly teach however, Webber further teaches the system as described above in claim 2.
As per claim 17, Tran teaches the system of claim 16 as described above.
Tran does not explicitly teach however, Webber further teaches the system as described above in claim 2.
Claims 3, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0268260.
As per claim 3, Tran teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Tran further teaches the method wherein a responsive action comprises producing a sound using a speaker of the computing device, triggering a visual alert to be presented on the computing device, producing a haptic feedback using the computing device, or some combination thereof (paragraphs 102, 158, 222).
However, Tran does not explicitly teach that “the responsive action comprises…” It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to combine these features together.
The elements are all known but not combined as claimed. The technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. When combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately.
As per claim 11, Tran teaches the system of claim 9 as described above.
Tran further teaches the system as described above in claim 2.
As per claim 18, Tran teaches the device of claim 16 as described above.
Tran further teaches the device as described above in claim 2.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0268260 in view of Giordano et al U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2017/ 0300627.
As per claim 8, Tran teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Tran further teaches the method comprising:
prior to receiving the request to verify the medical information (paragraphs 250- 251, provider enters new information for trust authority and 255 without previous blockchain history):
receiving, by the node that is part of a network of nodes with access to the distributed ledger, a transaction request to perform one or more operations on the distributed ledger (paragraph 251),
wherein the one or more operations comprises storing a record of a transaction associated with the medical information for the patient and content pertaining to the medical information for the patient in the distributed ledger (paragraph 251 and 252);
determining, by the node, whether the content pertaining to the medical information is corroborated by one or more records of other transactions associated with the patient that are stored in the distributed ledger (paragraph 256 provider’s database gatekeeper);
responsive to determining that the content pertaining to the medical test is corroborated, endorsing, by the node, the transaction request (paragraph 254 notified of new test – as above, “endorsing” is a descriptive term);
Tran does not explicitly teach however, Giordano further teaches the method comprising:
determining, by the node, whether a threshold number of nodes of the network of nodes have endorsed the transaction request (paragraph 45 consensus); and
responsive to determining that the threshold number of nodes of the network of nodes have endorsed the transaction request, performing, by the node, the one or more operations to store, in the block, the record of the transaction associated with the medical information for the patient and the content pertaining to the medical information for the patient in the distributed ledger (paragraph 45 updating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add these features into Tran. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have added these features into Tran with the motivation to manage healthcare records (Giordano, Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Torrenegra et al Pub. No.: US 2019/0325532 generate and store data representing signals and recommendations between account holders of a professional social network.
Raduchel et al Pub. No.: US 2017/0161439 providing a healthcare provider with an electronic medical record of a patient, a recommendation, or an alert relating to the patient, based on an analysis of the patient's health data
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Neal R Sereboff whose telephone number is (571)270-1373. The examiner can normally be reached M - T, M - F 8AM - 6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571)272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/NEAL SEREBOFF/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626