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 .
Status of the Claims
The office action is in response to the claim amendments and remarks filed on May 12, 2026 for the application filed December 21, 2022 which claims priority to a provisional application filed on December 21, 2021. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 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.
Eligibility Step 1:
Under step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, claims 1-4 and 6-7 are directed towards a method (i.e. a process), which is a statutory category. Claims 8-11 and 13-14 are directed towards a computing system (i.e. a machine), which is a statutory category. Claims 15-18 and 20 are directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. a manufacture), which is a statutory category. Since the claims are directed toward statutory categories, it must be determined if the claims are directed towards a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In the instant application, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One:
Under step 2A, prong one of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are determined to be directed to an judicial exception because an abstract idea is recited in the claims which fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas. The abstract idea (identified in bold) recited in the representative claim 8 is identified as:
A computing system, comprising:
a processor; and memory storing an application which, when executed by the processor, performs an operation, the operation comprising:
receiving a medical record for a person;
scanning the medical record to generate tags, the tags providing information about at least one of medical needs or a responsible payer of the person, wherein the tags include data identifying a location of the information in the medical record;
assigning visual indicators to the tags to represent a compatibility of the information in the tags with a particular healthcare facility; and
transmitting, for display, a GUI comprising (i) the tags along with their visual indicators and (ii) a portion of the medical record, wherein the portion of medical record is a subset of the medical record;
identifying respective portions of the medical record that have text used to generate each of the tags; and
converting the tags into selectable tags that, when displayed in the GUI and selected by a user, update the GUI to show the respective portion of the medical record corresponding to a selected one of the tags but not the remain portion of medical record, wherein updating the GUI comprises auto-scrolling the GUI to the respective portion of the medical record based on the data identifying the location of the information in the medical record.
The identified limitations of the abstract idea of claims 1, 8 and 15 fall within the subject matter grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity and the sub grouping of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The identified limitations in the claim are directed to displaying information (i.e. medical record information, medical needs information or responsible payer information and healthcare facility compatibility to the medical needs or responsible payer information) to a person, which at its core is human activity of providing information to a person. The claims do not recite any limitations as to how to achieve the desired tags or visual indicators or any limitations that be construed as an improvement to graphical user interface. Furthermore, the scanning of medical records for medical needs necessary to generate the tags, the determining of compatibility of a healthcare facility and medical needs necessary to assign the tags and the identifying respective portions of the medical records used to generate tags fall within the subject matter grouping of mental processes, as these steps can be performed in the human mind using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions.
Accordingly, claims 1, 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea under step 2A, prong one.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong Two:
Under step 2A, prong two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether the identified abstract ideas are integrated into a practical application. After evaluation, there is no indication that any additional elements or combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, such as through: an additional element that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvements to any other technology or technical field; an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; an additional element that implements the judicial exception with, or uses the judicial exception in connection with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses 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 is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As shown below, the additional elements, other than the abstract idea per se, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than a recitation of: generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use; insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and/or adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as evidenced below.
The additional elements recited in representative claim 8 are identified in bold as:
A computing system, comprising:
a processor; and memory storing an application which, when executed by the processor, performs an operation, the operation comprising:
receiving a medical record for a person;
scanning the medical record to generate tags, the tags providing information about at least one of medical needs or a responsible payer of the person, wherein the tags include data identifying a location of the information in the medical record;
assigning visual indicators to the tags to represent a compatibility of the information in the tags with a particular healthcare facility; and
transmitting, for display, a GUI comprising (i) the tags along with their visual indicators and (ii) a portion of the medical record, wherein the portion of the medical record is a subset of the medical record;
identifying respective portions of the medical record that have text used to generate each of the tags; and
converting the tags into selectable tags that, when displayed in the GUI and selected by a user, update the GUI to show the respective portion of the medical record corresponding to a selected one of the tags but not the remaining portion of the medical record, wherein updating the GUI comprises auto-scrolling the GUI to the respective portion of the medical record based on the data identifying the location of the information in the medical record.
The additional limitations of “A computing system, comprising: a processor; and memory storing an application which, when executed by the processor, performs an operation, the operation comprising:” are determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(f). The processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality and used in their ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or no more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The additional limitations of “transmitting a GUI” are determined to be no more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception under MPEP §2106.05(g).Transmitting a GUI is the mere necessary data outputting/transmitting which does not provide meaningful limits to the claims.
Accordingly, claims 1, 8 and 15 do not recite additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Eligibility Step 2B:
Under step 2B of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether provide an inventive concept by determining if the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After evaluation, there is no indication that an additional element or combination of elements 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 limitations of “A computing system, comprising: a processor; and memory storing an application which, when executed by the processor, performs an operation, the operation comprising:” are determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(f) and the additional limitation of “transmitting a GUI” is determined to be no more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception under MPEP §2106.05(g), which is do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Evidence that transmitting a GUI is well-understood, routine and conventional is provided by MPEP §2106.05(d) subsection II (see transmitting data over a network). The additional limitation of “converting the tags into selectable tags that, when displayed in the GUI and selected by a user, update the GUI to show the respective portion of the medical record corresponding to a selected one of the tags but not the remaining portion of the medical record” is determined to be a well-understood, routine and conventional GUI technique as evidenced by Flanagan in paragraph [0095] which describes that GUI’s may be configured such that selecting displayed facts (i.e. tags) representing medical information scanned from clinical text (i.e. medical records) shows the respective portion of the clinical text corresponding to a selected fact. Flanagan was filed in 2012 and published in 2014 indicating that such selectable tags in the context of the invention have been around for over a decade and are therefore considered well-understood, routine and conventional. The additional element of “wherein updating the GUI comprises auto-scrolling the GUI to the respective portion of the medical record based on the data identifying the location of the information in the medical record” is determined to be a well-understood, routine and conventional GUI technique as evidenced by Ahlstrom which discusses that anchor tags and scollintoview GUI elements for auto-scrolling the GUI to the respective portion of data are well-understood, routine and conventional GUI element functionality.
Furthermore, 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 amounts to an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims:
The dependent claims merely present additional abstract information in tandem with further details regarding the elements from the independent claims and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons as given above. Claims 2-4, 9-11 and 16-18 recite elements which are encompassed by the abstract idea above and also directed to abstract idea grouping of mental processes, as the limitations can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluations, judgments and opinions. Claims 6 and 13 recite limitations which limits the selectable tags to selectable tags which show predetermined information and pop-up windows having predetermined information, which are well-understood, routine and conventional GUI techniques, as evidenced by Flanagan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0215558) in paragraphs [0095] and [0097]-[0098]. Claims 7, 14 and 20 recite addition abstract limitations in combination with the training of a machine learning model and use thereof. Training a machine learning model is simple a series of mathematical calculations and therefore directed to the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea and performing the abstract assigning based on the trained machine learning model is mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(f) as the trained model is used to achieve the desired result of assigning without any details as to how the assigning is achieved, None of these limitations are deemed to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because, as detailed above.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 25, 2025 regarding claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues under step 2A that the additional element of “wherein updating the GUI comprises auto-scrolling the GUI to the respective portion of the medical record based on the data identifying the location of the information in the medical record” result in an improved user interface for electronic devices which integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
In response, in evaluating improvements in the function of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field, the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. If the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Example 37 explicitly set forth the problem and improvement to GUI icon organizing in a manner that provided sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The Applicant’s specification describes the problem being solved as the significant amount of time it may take an evaluator to determine whether a healthcare facility is suitable and the solution to the problem as performing any textual analysis and compatibility analysis on the records in order to display tags, along with their visual indicator representing if a healthcare facility is suitable. Automatically determining and displaying information to a user instead of a user having to determine the information is not an improvement to GUIs, but merely automating a manual process. The specification provides no details related to conserving screen space, that the selectable tags are improvements to prior art tags, that the scanning to generate tags is an improvement to prior art scanning/tag generation. Conversely, the specification sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner by stating the tags and visual indicator improve computer technology relative to a GUI that does not perform text analysis or capability analysis, which does not provide the detail necessary for the asserted improvement to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, while paragraph [0072] of the specification describes the functionality of the auto scrolling feature, the specification provides no details as to this feature being an improvement to GUI technology.
Applicant argues under step 2B that the additional element of “wherein updating the GUI comprises auto-scrolling the GUI to the respective portion of the medical record based on the data identifying the location of the information in the medical record” amount to significantly more by providing an improvement to the field of graphical user interfaces for patient-facility evaluation systems.
In response, it is determined that the additional element of “wherein updating the GUI comprises auto-scrolling the GUI to the respective portion of the medical record based on the data identifying the location of the information in the medical record” is determined to be a well-understood, routine and conventional GUI technique as evidenced by Ahlstrom which discusses that anchor tags and scollintoview GUI elements for auto-scrolling the GUI to the respective portion of data are well-understood, routine and conventional GUI element functionality. Merely applying this technology to user-case specific GUI’s does not change the analysis.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Devin C. Hein whose telephone number is (303)297-4305. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM M-F MDT.
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, Jason B. Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. 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.
/DEVIN C HEIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights