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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 11 February 2026, the following has occurred: Claims 21 and 32 have been amended.
Claims 21-24, 30-35, 39, and 40 are pending.
Priority
This application claims priority to Continuation priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 16/694,835 dated 25 November 2019 (now abandoned) which claims Continuation priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 14/231,348 dated 31 March 2014 (now abandoned).
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 21-24, 30-35, 39, and 40 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 21 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a system and method for transmitting an alert and/or parsing data, which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
The limitations of (Claim 32 being representative) receiving first parseable data and a command to interpret the first parseable data; and transmitting the command and the first parseable data; generating a first alert in response to receiving the command and the first parseable data; in response to the first alert, receiving user, second parseable data; transmitting the first and second parseable data; parsing the first and second parseable data into respective first and second sets of keywords; determining a first score associated with the first parseable data; determining a second score associated with the second parseable data based on a link between the second set of keywords and one or more second values, wherein the first score and the second score indicate a descriptiveness, amount of detail, seriousness, criticality, difficulty in interpreting, or a quantity or rarity of a condition in the first parseable data and the second parseable data, respectively; automatically transmitting an alert comprising an indication to update the second parseable data in response to at least one of the following: determining that the second score is below a richness threshold; or determining that a difference between the second score and the first score exceeds a difference threshold; automatically transmitting an alert comprising an indication to update the first parseable data in response to at least one of the following: determining that the first score is below the richness threshold; or determining that the difference between the second score and the first score exceeds the difference threshold; receiving third parseable data; determining a third score based on the third parseable data; determining that the third score is below the richness threshold; and in response to determining that the third score is below the richness threshold, automatically and repeatedly transmitting, via a workflow queue, a prescreened data file until the richness threshold is satisfied; generating an aggregated score from multiple scores associated with parseable data; automatically adjusting an amount of prescreened files inserted into the workflow queue transmitted such that a ratio of unscreened files to prescreened files in the workflow queue depends on the aggregated score
, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to transmit an alert and/or parse multiple types of data (see preambles of Claims 21 and 32) in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “receiving… transmitting… generating… receiving… transmitting… parsing… determining (x2)… transmitting… determining (x4)… receiving… determining (x2)… transmitting… generating… and adjusting” as indicated supra.
Other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), i.e., a system/method implemented by a series of computing devices (generic computers), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of a system/method implemented via multiple remote computers (a requesting computing device, a remote interpretation computing device, a remote analysis computing device) connected via multiple networks connections that implements the identified abstract idea. These computer elements are not exclusively described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (see Specification Para. 0162 describing the system as one or more general purpose computers) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Even assuming the multiple network connections constitute additional elements that are not generic computer components, the multiple network connections merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does 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, the additional element of using a system/method implemented via multiple remote computers (a requesting computing device, a remote interpretation computing device, a remote analysis computing device) connected via multiple networks connections to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also, assuming the multiple network connections constitute additional elements that are not generic computer components, these additional elements were determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 22-24, 30, 31, 33-35, and 39-40 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim(s) 22, 33 merely describe(s) how keywords are identified. Claim(s) 23, 34 merely describe(s) associating keywords with a richness score. Claim(s) 24, 35 merely describe(s) what the richness score is based on. Claim(s) 30, 39 merely describe(s) generating and transmitting a notification. Claim(s) 31, 40 merely describe(s) determining the types of keywords and if the keywords are within a threshold number of words from one another.
Claim(s) 22, 23, 33 also includes the additional element of “a database” which is interpreted to be part of the analysis computing device.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 21-24, 30-35, 39, and 40, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant rehashes many of the arguments that were found unpersuasive in the prior Office Actions (Final Rejection dated 10 February 2025; Non-Final rejection dated 13 August 2025). Applicant further argues:
In the Office Action, the Office's analysis under part one of the Alice test (also known as Step 2A, Prong One) is cursory and mischaracterizes claim 32. The Office alleges that the "claim encompasses a person parsing first and second parsable [sic] data into keywords, determining a specificity, complexity score, and/or richness score for the keywords, determining whether the scores are above or below threshold, and transmitting an alert." Claim 32 does not encompass a person parsing first and second parseable data nor a person
determining scores; instead claim 32 recites: "using the analysis computing device, parsing the first and second parseable data into respective first and second sets of keywords; determining a first score associated with the first parseable data based on a link between the first set of keywords and one or more first values; determining a second score associated with the second parseable data based on a link between the second set of keywords and one or more second values, wherein the first score and the second score indicate a descriptiveness, amount of detail, seriousness, criticality, difficulty in interpreting, or a quantity or rarity of a condition in the first parseable data and the second parseable data, respectively .... "
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, the Examiner is unclear as to how the analysis is cursory and mischaracterizes Claim 32. The identified abstract idea is the exact language from the claim. Nothing has been mischaracterized. Further, every portion of the claim, except for the additional element that were analyzed subsequently, is reflected in the identified abstract idea. The analysis is not cursory.
Regarding the “persons” argument, as indicated previously, the claims represent a series of rule or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer to transmit an alert and/or parse multiple types of data (see preambles of Claims 21 and 32). Multiple CAFC decisions that the Office has characterized as Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity did not actively recite a person or persons performing the steps of the claims (see, e.g., EPG, TLI communications, Ultramercial). Because whether a human is required to perform the step of the claim is not a requirement for claims to encompass certain method of organizing human activity, this argument is not persuasive.
In McRO, the Federal Circuit cautioned that courts "must be careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" and emphasized that the claims were "limited to rules with specific characteristics" and were "considered in their entirety" rather than abstracted as organizing human behavior. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Regarding (b), the Examiner submits that McRO did not caution that “claims were ‘limited to rules with specific characteristics’ and were ‘considered in their entirety’ rather than abstracted as organizing human behavior.” McRO stated that “the claims are considered in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter” (citing Internet Patents Corp.). The phrase “organizing human behavior” does not even appear in McRO. Applicant is reminded of their duty of candor before the Office. In any event, the Examiner submits that the claims have been considered in their entirety as indicated by the use of the exact language from the claim.
The Federal Circuit found that a claim was not directed to an abstract idea under part one because it recited "limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice." Id. at 1316. Claim 21 likewise recites [features of the claim].
Regarding (c), the Examiner disagrees. The claims in McRO were found to not be directed to an abstract idea because, circularly, they provided an improvement to the computer (a practical application). This practical application was a series of rules/steps that allowed a computer to produce animation “that previously could only be produced by human.” The Examiner cannot find nor has the Applicant identified any evidence that computers could not previously be programmed to perform the features of the claim.
The specification and claims 21 and 32 satisfy these steps [of consulting the Specification to determine if an improvement is present, citing to Spec. Para. 0050, 0051].
Regarding (d), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Neither of Para. 0050 or 0051 describe an improvement by any measure in MPEP 2106.04. For instance, there is no indication that the computer(s) are physically improved, there is no indication that the claimed invention solves a technological problem, and there is no indication that any other “improvement” within the meaning of the word is present.
Much like the claims found to recite patent-eligible subject matter in Example 42 from the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, the present claims integrate the alleged exception into a practical application. … Example 42- Claim 1 is analogous to the recitations of Claim 21, as amended: [reiterating the entire claim].
Regarding (e), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d) sates that one way in which a claimed abstract idea may be subject matter eligible under prong 2A2 is if the claimed invention solves a described technological problem. Example 42 is an illustration of this. The Specification of Example 42 describes a technical problem (i.e., a problem caused by the technology): the technological implementation of software formats made it difficult to share updated health information. The claimed invention then solved this problem (a technical solution) by providing a message and access to updated real-time data that has been converted to a standardized format, thus integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Unlike Example 42 and/or the technical solution to a technical problem inquiry, Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any technical problem that the claimed invention is solving. The Background of the Specification describes that the problem faced by the Applicant is a bored/complacent/fatigued radiologist (“After reviewing long series of normal data, however, the diagnostic clinician can become bored, complacent, or fatigued and may tend to underdiagnose, over-diagnose, or misdiagnose subtle and perhaps even startling abnormalities presented in the workflow.”). At best, the problem(s) described in the as-filed disclosure are an administrative and/or training problem. This problem was not cause by the technological environment to which the claims are confined and thus no technological problem is being solved.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Polack et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2015/0229767) which discloses an enterprise workflow management system having a defined workflow queue and which allows for customization.
Joffe et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2003/0233250) which discloses a biological data interpretation tool by comparing the biological data to a standardized set of data and generating a report therefrom.
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 JASON S TIEDEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4594. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-4:00pm, off alternate Fridays.
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.
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683