DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the pending claims cannot be a method or organizing human activity, as they do not recite displaying information as the focus, nor do they recite a process that can practically be performed in the human mind. Examiner asserts that the claims are directed to displaying information to a user, which is most related to managing human interactions, more specifically social activities. An example demonstrating social activities, as seen in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II.)(C.), is Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018), where activities such as displaying information to a user is considered abstract.
Applicant further argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because the additional elements represent a particular technological solution to a technical problem in computerized medical data presentation. Examiner further asserts that the use of the user interface display does not show an improvement to technology. When considering the following apparent technical improvements, the “dynamic” event driven interface rendering as shown in [0012] recites merely displaying selectable controls in the interface when selecting another control, where there is no indication of a technological improvement beyond the generic implementation of the user interface. [0015] again is describing merely displaying information after a data item is selected, which describes generic user interface implementation of displaying information. [0132] further describes displaying controls linked to the historical records, which again recites generic implementation of the controls and the ”updating” of the interface does not indicate a technical improvement for user interface technology nor medical data presentation.
Regarding improved handling via relational link structures, [0038] describing the data center that stores data in a relational database structure merely recites storing data in a data structure that provides no improvement to data handling as there is no specific implementation of the generic relational database structure. [0081] reciting the record identification record recites elements that are not claimed. [0089] recites the generation and storage of link data associated with the data item with the historical records, however there is no indication of improved data handling beyond the generic implementation of storing data that is linked.
Regarding reduced computational overhead/efficient rendering, [0150] describing the operations being done simultaneously so data items are only displayed once, this merely recites generic use of an interface to display information one at a time, and no indication of a technical improvement beyond the generic UI implementation when displaying information. [0122] describing the automatic scrolling is not claimed.
Regarding modular plug in architecture for adaptability, [0066-0067] there is no specific information or description related to the compatibility of the format as claimed to show the technology improvement.
Regarding the overall technical effect, and as previously described, there is no indication, as analyzed, of a technical improvement of user interface tech, data linking, data exchange, and reducing redundancy.
Applicant further argues that the pending claims are analogous to Data Engine Techs v. Google LLC. Examiner further asserts that this case is used as an example for an improvement to computer functionality as the invention in question recites Specific interface and implementation for navigating complex three-dimensional spreadsheets using techniques unique to computers, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I.). There is no indication that the instant application recites the use of user interface technologies that are similar to the implementation of specific techniques involving 3D spreadsheets as in Data Engine Techs. The use of multiple selectable controls of the UI as claimed in the instant application are not similar to the technology related to the particular manner of interacting with the 3D spreadsheets.
Regarding the example of Core Wireless, this recites an improvement of technology related to a particular manner of displaying an application summary of un-launched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application. The launching of an application on the device is part of the technological improvement and is not abstract. The instant application however recites displaying note data records, which is part of the analyzes abstract idea, when actuating the control, where displaying the records and data records is part of the abstract idea and is not similar to launching an application on the device. The use of the generic interface controls to increase the efficiency at which users can navigate through and access patient data records recites an improvement to an abstract process, not necessarily a technology improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a)II, particularly “Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology” and further see MPEP 2106.05 (f) , "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept". Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).”
As previously noted and further described in the following Office Action, when considering the claim elements as a whole, there is no indication of a particular solution of dynamic rendering of relationally linked historical records without reloading the interface that improves computer performance.
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 2-16 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
It is appropriate for the Examiner to determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test as recited in the following Steps: 1, 2A, and 2B, see MPEP 2106(III.).
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 1:
First, the Examiner is to establish whether the claim falls within any statutory category including a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, see MPEP 2106.03(II.) and MPEP 2106.03(I).
Claims 10-15 are related to a system, and claims 2-9 are also related to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, these claims are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong One:
Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test demonstrates whether a clam is directed to a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(I.). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, where Prong One establishes the judicial exception. Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes, see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(1.) and 2106.04(a)(2).
Independent claim 2 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 2 recites:
A method of generating a user interface, the method comprising:
receiving a value, the value corresponding to a data item, the value and data item identifying a physical characteristic of a patient;
generating a user interface, the user interface comprising a note data record, the note data record comprising the data item, the user interface further comprising a data-item selectable control associated with the data item;
upon actuation of the data-item selectable control, adding two or more data-record selectable controls, each of the two or more data-record selectable controls corresponding to a separate note data record, each note data record comprising the data item.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing interactions between people as the following abstract limitations are related to displaying note data records and thus recite social activities:
receiving a value, the value corresponding to a data item, the value and data item identifying a physical characteristic of a patient, which is an abstract limitation related to an observation of the value in the data item to be used in the next abstract step,
the note data record comprising the data item which is displayed, where the abstract action of “displaying” is inferred under broadest reasonable interpretation given the use of the user interface which is used to display information to a user (use of the interface is further analyzed under Subject Matter Eligibility Test Step 2A Prong Two analysis),
displaying the separate note data record, each note data record comprising the data item, where the abstract action of “displaying” is inferred under broadest reasonable interpretation given the use of the user interface which is used to display information to a user (use of the interface is further analyzed under Subject Matter Eligibility Test Step 2A Prong Two analysis).
The claim limitations as a whole, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recite social activities related to displaying note data records to a user.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 10 recites:
An apparatus for generating a medical records user interface, the apparatus comprising:
a data interface for receiving a value corresponding to a data item, the value and data item identifying a physical characteristic of a patient, and for outputting data corresponding to a user interface; and
a processor in data communication with the data interface, the processor programmed to generate a user interface comprising a note data record, the note data record comprising the data item, the user interface further comprising a data-item selectable control associated with the data item, the processor further programed to selectively add two or more data-record selectable controls, each of the two or more data-record selectable control corresponding to a separate note data record, each note data record comprising the data item.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing interactions between people as the following abstract limitations are related to displaying note data records and thus recite social activities:
receiving a value corresponding to a data item, the value and data item identifying a physical characteristic of a patient, and for outputting data, which is an abstract limitation related to an observation of the data item to be used in the next abstract step and “outputting” data which is related to the next abstract steps,
the note data record comprising the data item which is displayed, where the abstract action of “displaying” is inferred under broadest reasonable interpretation given the use of the user interface which is used to display information to a user (use of the interface is further analyzed under Subject Matter Eligibility Test Step 2A Prong Two analysis),
displaying the separate note data record, each note data record comprising the data item, where the abstract action of “displaying” is inferred under broadest reasonable interpretation given the use of the user interface which is used to display information to a user (use of the interface is further analyzed under Subject Matter Eligibility Test Step 2A Prong Two analysis).
The claim limitations as a whole, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recite social activities related to displaying note data records to a user.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below:
Claim 3 recites further abstract limitations related to the displaying of the first value of the first data item in a medical record as a color to denote the status, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claim 4 recites further abstract limitation describing the first value as being different than the second value, which further describes the abstract idea. Claim 5 recites further abstract limitation reciting that a color is associated with the value that “indicates” the state of the value, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claim 7 recites further abstract limitations of the color associated with a label which “indicates” the state of the value corresponding to the data item, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claims 8 and 9 recite further abstract limitation describing the values as either being numerical or textual, thus further describing the abstract idea.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrates the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exceptions into a “practical application,” see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(2.) and 2106.04(d)(I.).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
Regarding claim 2:
A method of generating a user interface, the method comprising (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
receiving a value, the value corresponding to a data item, the value and data item identifying a physical characteristic of a patient;
generating a user interface, the user interface (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) comprising a note data record, the note data record comprising the data item, the user interface further comprising a data-item selectable control associated with the data item (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
upon actuation of the data-item selectable control, adding two or more data-record selectable controls, each of the two or more data-record selectable controls (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) corresponding to a separate note data record, each note data record comprising the data item.
Regarding the additional limitation of generating a user interface, the user interface comprising a data-item selectable control associated with the data item and upon actuation of the data-item selectable control, adding two or more data-record selectable controls, each of the two or more data-record selectable controls, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0093, 0098, 0113] of Applicant’s Specification recites the use of the user interface. [0098, 0103] recites the use of the selectable control and the generation of two other controls. The additional elements recite the user of a user interface, which is part of a generic computer, to merely display note data records, where the generation of the selectable controls recites generic user interface technology to further display information. These limitations recite the use of generic computing technologies to carry out the abstract idea without a technological improvement related to user interface technologies, and is thus mere computer implementation.
Regarding claim 10:
An apparatus for generating a medical records user interface, the apparatus comprising (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
a data interface for (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) receiving a value corresponding to a data item, the value and data item identifying a physical characteristic of a patient, and for outputting data corresponding to a user interface; and (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
a processor in data communication with the data interface, the processor programmed to generate a user interface (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) comprising a note data record, the note data record comprising the data item, the user interface further comprising a data-item selectable control associated with the data item, the processor further programed to selectively add two or more data-record selectable controls, each of the two or more data-record selectable control (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) corresponding to a separate note data record, each note data record comprising the data item.
Regarding the additional limitation of generating a medical record user interface, a data interface, a processor, and the user interface further comprising a data-item selectable control associated with the data item, the processor further programed to selectively add two or more data-record selectable controls, each of the two or more data-record selectable control, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0093, 0098, 0113] of Applicant’s Specification recites the use of the user interface for medical records. [0098, 0103] recites the use of the selectable control and the generation of two other controls. [0061] recites the use of the data interface. [0061] recites the use of the processor and the data communication. The additional elements recite the user of a user interface, which is part of a generic computer with generic processing components, to merely display note data records, where the generation of the selectable controls recites generic user interface technology to further display information. These limitations recite the use of generic computing technologies to carry out the abstract idea without a technological improvement related to user interface technologies, and is thus mere computer implementation.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to display note data records, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b).
For these reasons, the independent claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below:
Claim 3 recites additional elements related to the second data record selectable control, however recites generic components of a user interface to carry out the abstract idea and is thus mere computer implementation. Claim 6 recites further detail of the control comprising the value, however this further recites mere computer implementation. Claim 11 recites additional elements of using the processor to retrieve data from memory, which is mere computer implementation. Claim 12 recites further additional element of using a network interface for the data interface, which recites mere computer implementation. Claims 13 and 14 recite additional elements of using an input/output or and input or output interface, thus further recites mere computer implementation. Claim 15 recites further additional elements of using a video adapter to output the user interface, reciting mere computer implementation. Claim 16 recites adding more selectable controls where actuation is used , however this recites the use of a generic user interface to display selectable controls and display of information to a user, which recites mere computer implementation. Further, the controls are linked to a stored relational data structure to the respective historical note data records, however this merely recites the use of data storage with the linking of the user interface, where the controls are displayed on a dedicated plane without reloading the user interface, however this still recites generic user interface technologies and recites generic computer implementation.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, representative independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see additionally MPEP 2106.05(II.). Further, it may need to be established, when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, that the additional elements recite well understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 2:
Regarding the additional limitation of generating a user interface, the user interface comprising a data-item selectable control associated with the data item and upon actuation of the data-item selectable control, adding two or more data-record selectable controls, each of the two or more data-record selectable controls, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0093, 0098, 0113] of Applicant’s Specification recites the use of the user interface. [0098, 0103] recites the use of the selectable control and the generation of two other controls. The additional elements recite the user of a user interface, which is part of a generic computer, to merely display note data records, where the generation of the selectable controls recites generic user interface technology to further display information. These limitations recite the use of generic computing technologies to carry out the abstract idea without a technological improvement related to user interface technologies, and is thus mere computer implementation and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10:
Regarding the additional limitation of generating a medical record user interface, a data interface, a processor, and the user interface further comprising a data-item selectable control associated with the data item, the processor further programed to selectively add two or more data-record selectable controls, each of the two or more data-record selectable control, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0093, 0098, 0113] of Applicant’s Specification recites the use of the user interface for medical records. [0098, 0103] recites the use of the selectable control and the generation of two other controls. [0061] recites the use of the data interface. [0061] recites the use of the processor and the data communication. The additional elements recite the user of a user interface, which is part of a generic computer with generic processing components, to merely display note data records, where the generation of the selectable controls recites generic user interface technology to further display information. These limitations recite the use of generic computing technologies to carry out the abstract idea without a technological improvement related to user interface technologies, and is thus mere computer implementation and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and therefore claims 2-16 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS whose telephone number is (571)272-6719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3686