DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 7, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 13, 15, 17, 26-27, and 29 have been amended. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-13, 15, and 17-29 have been examined and are currently pending.
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 .
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claim 1 recites the limitation, “and (d) create or append a comprehensive data record stored in the database using the curated data from the various [machine] sources or channels…”. The applicant did not include the term “machine” between the words “various” and “sources”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claim 1 recites the limitation, “designate the data received from the various [machine] sources or channels…”. The applicant did not include the term “machine” between the words “various” and “sources”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claim 1 recites the limitation, “reconfigured the data received from the various [machine] sources or channels…”. The applicant did not include the term “machine” between the words “various” and “sources”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Dependent claim 6 recites the term, “the information” in line 4 lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claim 13 recites the term, “the existing data” in line 27 lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Dependent claim 18 recites the term, “the information” in line 5 lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: dependent claim 29 recites the limitation, “wherein curating the data comprises the processor being further configured to analyze the data associated with the individual from the various [machine] sources or channels, validate that the data associated with the individual from the various [machine] sources or channels is placed into a correct field, deduplicate the data associated with the individual from the various [machine] sources or channels, and determine timestamp information for each field in the data associated with the individual from the various [machine] sources or channels to ensure that the a most recent medical data exists in each entry of the comprehensive data record.”. The applicant did not include the term “machine” between the words “various” and “sources”. 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, 3, 5-7, 9-13, 15, and 17-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- 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; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using 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
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using 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 NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-13, 15, and 17-29 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.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1 is directed to system, independent claim 13 is directed to a method, independent claim 26 directed to a system, and independent claim 27 is directed a method.
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Mental processes
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations, “(b) request via electronic communication data associated with the individual from various machine sources or channels in response to receiving the trigger, the various machine sources or channels comprise one or more provider devices associated with one or more medical care providers, a network utility hosting or connected to a network comprising the one or more provider devices, and/or the database, (c) curate the data received from the various sources machine or channels in response to receiving the trigger, and (d) create or append a comprehensive data record stored in the database using the curated data from the various sources or channels, wherein the trigger is an admit/discharge/transfer message, an insurance eligibility check message, an appointment scheduling message, or an insurance claim message with message triggering reducing processing load on the processor and the database absent curation with each message being a machine-readable message, wherein curating the data comprises the processor being configured to: reformat the data associated with the individual from the various machine sources or channels into a format of the comprehensive data record; break down the data received from the various machine sources or channels into individual components; designate the data received from the various sources or channels into current data or historical data based on timestamp information for each data component with comparisons to existing data in the comprehensive data record; and reconfigure the data received from the various sources or channels based on existing data in the comprehensive data record.” which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. Specifically, the limitations of curating data from various sources, creating or appending a data record stored in a database, reformatting data, breaking down data, designating data, and reconfiguring data can be performed by a human/person (in the human mind) through observation, evaluation, and judgment. A person can evaluate data received, categorize or classify the data based on time (e.g., historical or current), and organize the classified data based on the time in an account or record.
Mental processes
Independent claim 13 recites the limitations, “requesting data associated with the individual from various sources or channels in response to receiving the trigger, the various sources or channels comprise one or more provider devices associated with one or more medical care providers, a network utility hosting or connected to a network comprising the one or more provider devices, and/or a database; curating the data received from the various sources or channels in response to receiving the trigger; and creating or appending a comprehensive data record stored in a database using the curated data from the various sources or channels; wherein the trigger is an admit/discharge/transfer message, an insurance eligibility check message, an appointment scheduling message, or an insurance claim message with message triggering curation reducing processing load for generating the comprehensive data record with each message being a machine-readable electronic message, wherein curating the data comprises: reformatting the data associated with the individual from the various sources or channels into a format of the comprehensive data record; breaking down the data received from the various sources or channels into individual components; designating the data received from the various sources or channels into current data or historical data based on timestamp information for each data component using comparisons with the existing data in the comprehensive data record; and reconfiguring the data received from the various sources or channels based on existing data in the comprehensive data record.” which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. Specifically, the limitations of curating data from various sources, creating or appending a data record stored in a database, reformatting data, breaking down data, designating data, and reconfiguring data can be performed by a human/person (in the human mind) through observation, evaluation, and judgment. A person can evaluate data received, categorize or classify the data based on time (e.g., historical or current), and organize the classified data based on the time in an account or record.
Mental processes
Independent claim 26 recites the limitations, “(b) request data associated with the individual from various sources or channels in response to receiving the trigger, the various sources or channels comprise one or more provider devices associated with one or more medical care providers, a network utility hosting or connected to a network comprising the one or more provider devices, and/or the database, (c) receive curated data in response to receiving the trigger, the received curated data being curated by a device separate from the processor using the data associated with the individual from the various sources or channels, and (d) create or append a comprehensive data record stored in the database using the curated data from the various sources or channels, wherein the trigger is an admit/discharge/transfer message, an insurance eligibility check message, an appointment scheduling message, or an insurance claim message with message triggering reducing processing load on the processor and the database absent curation with each message being an electronic machine-readable message, wherein curating the data comprises the processor being configured to: reformat the data associated with the individual from the various sources or channels into a format of the comprehensive data record; break down the data received from the various sources or channels into individual components; designate the data received from the various sources or channels into current data or historical data based on timestamp information for each data component using comparisons with existing dat
Mental processes
Independent claim 27 recites the limitations, “requesting data associated with the individual from various sources or channels in response to receiving the trigger, the various sources or channels comprise one or more provider devices associated with one or more medical care providers, a network utility hosting or connected to a network comprising the one or more provider devices, and/or a database; receiving curated data in response to receiving the trigger, the received curated data being curated by a device separate from a processor using the data associated with the individual from the various sources or channels; and creating or appending a comprehensive data record stored in a database using the curated data from the various sources or channels; wherein the trigger is an admit/discharge/transfer message, an insurance eligibility check message, an appointment scheduling message, or an insurance claim message, wherein curating the data comprises: reformatting the data associated with the individual from the various sources or channels into a format of the comprehensive data record; breaking down the data received from the various sources or channels into individual components; designating the data received from the various sources or channels into current data or historical data based on timestamp information for each data component using comparisons with existing data in the comprehensive data record; and reconfiguring the data received from the various sources or channels based on existing data in the comprehensive data record. ” which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. Specifically, the limitations of curating data from various sources and creating or appending a data record stored in a database can be performed by a human/person (in the human mind) through observation, evaluation, and judgment. A person can evaluate data received, categorize or classify the data based on time (e.g., historical or current), and organize the classified data based on the time in an account or record.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The applicant has not shown or demonstrated any of the requirements described above under "integration into a practical application" under step 2A. Specifically, the applicant's limitations are not "integrated into a practical application" because they are adding words "apply it" with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field has not been shown or disclosed (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the applicant’s limitations are not “significantly more” because they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The applicant’s claimed limitations do not demonstrate an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, effecting a transformation or reduction of particular article to a different state or thing. The current application does not amount to 'significantly more' than the abstract idea as described above. The claim does not include additional elements or limitations individually or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the individual elements of a processor, one or more provider devices, and a network utility hosting amount to no more than implementing an idea with a computerized system and they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements taken in combination add nothing more than what is present when the elements are considered individually. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the exception (i.e., abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
Dependent claims 3, 5-7, 9-12, 15, 17-25, and 28-29 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. The following dependent claims: dependent claims 5 and 17 recite one or more provider devices, a network utility hosting and dependent claims 6, 11, 18, and 28-29 and recite a processor. Dependent claims 5-6, 11, 17-18, and 28-29 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
designate the data received from the various sources or channels into current data or historical data based on timestamp information for each data component with comparisons to existing data in the comprehensive data record; and
reconfigure the data received from the various sources or channels based on existing data in the comprehensive data record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. According to applicant's argument on pages 12-13 of the remarks disclose, "Claim 1 is amended to clarify that the claim is directed to technology and not directed to a judicial exception, e.g., not a mental process. Claim 1 now recites that it is a medical data curation system with efficient data curation and includes a database and a processor configured to (a) electrically receive a trigger generated in response to an individual undergoing a medical event, (b) request via electronic communication data associated with the individual from various machine sources or channels in response to receiving the trigger, the various machine sources or channels comprise one or more provider devices associated with one or more medical care providers, a network utility hosting or connected to a network comprising the one or more provider devices, and/or the database, (c) curate the data received from the various machine sources or channels in response to receiving the trigger, and (d) create or append a comprehensive data record stored in the database using the curated data from the various sources or channels. The system further operates on processing using message triggering to reduce processing load on the processor and the database absent curation with each message being a machine-readable message. These are clearly not mental processes by definition. Electronic data processing via a machine are not mental processes." The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant has added elements to independent claim 1 such as "various machine sources", "electronic communication", and "...with message triggering reducing processing load on the processor and the database absent curation with each message being a machine-readable message." However, independent claim 1 falls under the abstract idea of mental processes. Specifically, the limitations of creating or appending a data record stored in a database, reformatting data, breaking down data, designating data, and reconfiguring data can be performed by a human/person (in the human mind) through observation, evaluation, and judgment. A person can evaluate data received, categorize or classify the data based on time (e.g., historical or current), and organize the classified data based on the time in an account or record. The examiner notes the amendments associated with independent claim 1 are not reflected in independent claims 13, 26, and 27. For instance, independent claim 1 recites "via electronic communication" and "various machine sources" are not reflected in independent claim 13, 26, and 27. Additionally, independent claim 27 is not consistent with any of the amendments of independent claim 1.
B. According to applicant's argument on page 13 of the remarks discloses, "Even if the Examiner maintains that claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception, applicant submits that the claim is directed to a practical application. Improved data processing that is more efficient is a technological improvement. The Office Action indicates that the claim does not include elements in a technical field, applicant traverses. The Office Action further does not give patentable weight to the specification’s recitations at paras.36, 39, or 94. Applicant amends the claims to recite some of the technology improvements recited in the specification." The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 is not directed to a practical application. The alleged technical improvement of improved data processing efficiency is an intended use or end result of the invention. The claim does not demonstrate an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical as per the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The examiner has reviewed the cited paragraphs 0036, 0039, and 0094. Paragraph 0036 discloses different curation techniques, paragraph 0039 discloses a variety of types of trigger messages, and paragraph 0094 discloses how to create a longitudinal patient record using a curation method at particular period of time. The cited paragraphs do not provide a technical explanation as to how to the invention improves a technical field or functioning of a computer, as per 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Objections to claims 1, 3, 5, 13, 15, 17, 26-27, and 29 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30-5:30 pm 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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571)270-5096. 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.
/MATTHEW L HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682