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 Claims
This office action for the 18/296673 application is in response to the communications December 23, 2025.
Claims 1 and 10 were amended December 23, 2025.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and considered below.
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 1-15 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.
As per claim 1,
Step 1: The claim recites subject matter within a statutory category as a machine.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which Prong 1 determines whether a claim recites a judicial exception. Prong 2 determines if the additional limitations of the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. If the additional elements of the claim fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim contains subject matter that recites an abstract idea, with the steps of receiving a request to establish a connection between a set of patient records stored by the EMR system and associated with a patient and a set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient, wherein the request includes patient identifying information, comparing the patient identifying information received with the request with patient identifying information, in response to determining, based on the comparison, that the set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient exist, attempting to generate an association between the set of patient records stored by the EMR system and associated with the patient and the set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient, generating, with an account access code service, an access code associated with the set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient, wherein the access code is required to be verified prior to secure, authenticated data sharing such that the access code controls access to the set of patient records of the EMR system, and such that the access code is operable to ensure the secure, authenticated data sharing, providing access to the patient records of the EMR system in response to verification of the access code, such that the access code enforces access control to the patient records prior to providing acces to the patient records of the EMR system, thereby preventing unauthorized access, and in response to determining, based on the comparison, that the set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system does not exist. These steps, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation recite:
certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices including: hedging; insurance; mitigating risk; etc., commercial or legal interactions including: agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; etc., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including: social activities; teaching; following rules or instructions; etc.) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The identified abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon identified above, in the context of this claim, encompasses a certain method of organizing human activity, namely managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This is because each of the limitations of the abstract idea recites a list of rules or instructions that a human person can follow in the course of their personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers at least the recited methods of organizing human activity above, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f), such as:
“A server computing device of a glucose monitoring system, the server computing device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory communicatively coupled with the one or more processors, the memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising” and “from an electronic medical records (EMR) system” which corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Paragraph [0097] of the as-filed specification describes that the hardware that implements the abstract idea amounts to little more than a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“stored by the glucose monitoring system”, “ in response to verifying the access code, sending, to the EMR system, a confirmation of the association and the access code”, “between the glucose monitoring system and the EMR system” and “sending, to the EMR system, a notification that the request to establish the connection cannot been completed” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Accordingly, this claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“in response to verifying the access code, sending, to the EMR system, a confirmation of the association and the access code”, “between the glucose monitoring system and the EMR system” and “sending, to the EMR system, a notification that the request to establish the connection cannot been completed” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
“stored by the glucose monitoring system” which corresponds to storing and retrieving information in memory.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 2,
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 2 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the patient identifying information comprises patient name, patient date of birth, patient address, patient email address, patient phone number, or patient health care provider information.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 3,
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 3 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the patient identifying information comprises a patient identification code comprising an identifier unique to the patient in the EMR system.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 4,
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 4 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to perform further operations comprising periodically sending, to the EMR system, glucose data associated with the set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network, or storing and retrieving information in memory.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 5,
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 5 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“determining that new glucose data associated with the set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient is available;” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to perform further operations comprising:” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“sending, to the EMR system, the new glucose data associated with the set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network, or storing and retrieving information in memory.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 6,
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 6 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“requesting … patient data associated with the set of patient records stored by the EMR system and associated with the patient;” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to perform further operations comprising:” and “from the EMR system” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“receiving, from the EMR system in lieu of the requested patient data, a message indicating that no new patient data associated with the set of patient records stored by the EMR system and associated with the patient is available.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network, or storing and retrieving information in memory.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 7,
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 7 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“receiving… a request for new glucose data associated with the set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient; determining that no new glucose data associated with the set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient is available;” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to perform further operations comprising:” and “from the EMR system” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“sending, to the EMR system in lieu of the requested patient data, a message indicating that no new glucose data associated with the set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient is available.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network, or storing and retrieving information in memory.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 8,
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 8 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“receiving… patient data associated with the set of patient records stored by the EMR system and associated with the patient.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to perform further operations comprising” and “from the EMR system,” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 9,
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 9 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the patient data associated with the set of patient records stored by the EMR system and associated with the patient are new patient data” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“received from the EMR system when the new patient data becomes available.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network, or storing and retrieving information in memory.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 10,
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 10 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the request to establish a connection further comprises a second access code generated by the account access code service … prior to sending the confirmation of the association: determining, using the account access code service, that the second access code is associated with the set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient; and determining, using the account access code service, a validity of the second access code.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“and the instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to perform further operations comprising” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 11,
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 11 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the access code is configured to be valid for a predetermined period of time.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 12,
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 12 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the notification that the request to establish the connection cannot been completed further comprises instructions to establish the connection.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network, or storing and retrieving information in memory.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 13,
Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 13 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“subsequent to sending the confirmation of the association: receiving… a request to access a report generated based on glucose data stored in the set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient; generating… the requested report” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to perform further operations comprising”, “by the server computing device and from the EMR system”, and “by the server computing device and with a report generating system” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“sending, by the server computing device and to the EMR system, the generated report.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network, or storing and retrieving information in memory.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 14,
Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 14 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“requesting… updated patient data associated with the set of patient records stored by the EMR system and associated with the patient” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to perform further operations comprising:” and “from the EMR system” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“receiving, from the EMR system, the updated patient data associated with the set of patient records stored by the EMR system and associated with the patient, wherein the requested report is generated based on the updated patient data.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network, or storing and retrieving information in memory.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 15,
Claim 15 depends from claim 13 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 15 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“identifying glucose data to include in the requested report based on a datestamp or timestamp associated with the identified glucose data” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processes to perform further operations comprising” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-15 contain subject matter free of prior art. The Examiner has conducted a thorough search of the prior art and could not find a single reference, or combination of references with adequate rationale to combine, to teach the limitations of:
“comparing the patient identifying information received with the request with patient identifying information stored by the glucose monitoring system; in response to determining, based on the comparison, that the set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient exist: generating an association between the set of patient records stored by the EMR system and associated with the patient and the set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient; generating, with an account access code service, an access code associated with the set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient; and sending, to the EMR system, a confirmation of the association and the access code”
The closest prior art that the Examiner was able to find was:
Brown (US 2013/0085768): which teaches a server system that connects an HCP to a patient device such as a glucose monitor. The HCP would have to provide patient identification as well as an authorization code to connect to the sever to gain access to patient files. However, this invention is deficient in the generation of the access code after an association between the EMR data and monitoring data has been made.
Belliveau et al. (US 2021/0142912; herein referred to as Belliveau): which teaches the use of access/authentication codes/tokens to establish a connection between a HCP and a patient device. The server is configured to set up authentication codes after an association of devices is provided from the HCP and the CGM, however, this code appears to be in connection with the initial setup of the CGM device and monitoring apps used by the patient. This invention is deficient in teaching the storing of patient records prior to the generation of an authentication code or token.
Tran (US 11,051,704): which teaches a flowchart 4700 illustrating operations performed by the system 4100, in accordance to embodiments disclosed herein. At 4702, the system 4100 registers the one or more entities information and consent them to access information. The system 4100 can allow the medical practitioners to access the medical records based on the one or more entities consent. In order to consent, each entity may customize the settings of the system 4100 with access record. The entity number and access code may allow the medical practitioners, in communication with the system 4100, to view the medical record of the entity that have been registered, provided that the entity has authorized access. In an embodiment, the information accessed by the medical practitioners may include the entity medication history. However, this process relies upon a “consent” function that is different than the claimed comparing step. The system can consent any professional to any health record without comparing the patient of interest with the patient of the patient of the device.
It can be seen that none of the prior arts found by the Examiner fairly teach these limitations either alone or in combination. Accordingly, claims 1-15 contain subject matter free of prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the pending claims are distinct from fundamental economic principles or any other certain method of organizing activity. The pending claims provide for a computerized method for controlling access to information.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has not made the argument that the pending claims relate to fundamental economic principles. Rather, the Examiner stated that they recite “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”. See above and Non-Final Office Action. This is because each of the limitations of the identified abstract idea above recites a list of rules or instructions that a human person can follow in the course of their personal behavior. The aim of Step 2A Prong 1 is to determine whether an abstract idea is recited. The pending claims recite an abstract idea that has not been challenged by the Applicant. The new amendments do not change this determination for the reasons indicated here and above.
The Applicant further argues that the pending claims provide a practical application of the abstract idea and is therefore not directed to the recited abstract idea. Specifically, the ability to control access to protected client data has high importance in the medical industry for which the pending claims provide solutions.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. A claim having “high importance” for a field of technology is not a relevant consideration for a practical application. Relevant considerations for evaluating whether additional elements to an abstract idea for integration of the abstract idea into a practical application can be found at 2106.04(d)(I). The Applicant has not articulated any relevant consideration here.
The Applicant further argues that the pending claims provide for something significantly more than the abstract idea by providing an improvement to technology or any other technical field. Specifically, the pending claims substantially improve the technical field of protecting confidential data.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has failed to support their assertion of improving technology with any sort of evidence. Accordingly, this argument is a bare assertion of improvement and is therefore considered to be unpersuasive.
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 CHAD A NEWTON whose telephone number is (313)446-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM (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, PETER H. CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/CHAD A NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681