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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 22, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action for the 18/296673 application is in response to the communications April 22, 2026.
Claims 1-10 and 12-14 were amended April 22, 2026.
Claims 16-20 were cancelled April 22, 2026.
Claims 21 and 22 were added as new April 22, 2026.
Claims 1-15, 21 and 22 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, 21 and 22 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 first set of patient records that are associated with a patient and a second set of patient records that are associated with the patient, wherein the request includes first patient identifying information, comparing the first patient identifying information received with the request with second patient identifying information, in response to determining, based on the comparison, that the second set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient exist, attempting to generate an association between the first set of patient records stored by the EMR system and associated with the patient and the second set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient, accessing an access code that is generated associated with the second set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient, wherein the access code is required to be validated prior to secure, authenticated data sharing, validate access codes received from the EMR system or the glucose monitoring system and such that the access code, when validated by the account access code service, controls access to the first 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 receiving an indication that the access code has been successfully validated by the account access code service, authorizing access to the patient records associated with a patient account based on the indication, such that the access code enforces facilitates enforcement of an access control to the patient records prior to providing access to the patient records of the EMR system, thereby preventing unauthorized access, and in response to determining, based on the comparison, that the second 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 (i) provide an application server comprising a plurality of services executing in parallel, including an account access code service that is distinct from an account management service and (ii) perform operations comprising”, “from an electronic medical records (EMR) system”, “by the account access code service”, “executing as a service of the application server and that is”, “such that the account access code service is configured to”, “by the account management service of the application server”, “the account management service” 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:
“and that are stored by the EMR system”, “that are stored by the glucose monitoring system and”, “stored by the glucose monitoring system”, “from the account access code service”, “ 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 be 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:
“from the account access code service”, “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 be completed” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
“and that are stored by the EMR system”, “that are stored by the glucose monitoring system and” and “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 first or second 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 first or second 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 second 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 second 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 second 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 first 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 first 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 second set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient; determining that no new glucose data associated with the second 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 second 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 first 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 first 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 second 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 be 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 second 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 first 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 first 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.
As per claim 21,
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 associated with establishing secure data sharing for a patient; generating an access code associated with a set of patient records associated with the patient; receiving the access code for validation; validating the access code based on at least the stored association and one or more validity conditions; and in response to successful validation of the access code, providing an indication of successful validation, wherein the access code is usable. 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:
“an account access code service executing on a server computing device of a glucose monitoring system, the account access code service comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of the server computing device cause the one or more processors to perform,” 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:
“from an electronic medical records (EMR) system or from a component of the glucose monitoring system,”, “stored by the glucose monitoring system and”, “storing an association between the access code and the set of patient records;”, “from the EMR system or from the glucose monitoring system,”, “to an account management service executing on the server computing device,”, and “to control secure, authenticated data sharing between the glucose monitoring system and the EMR system” 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:
“from an electronic medical records (EMR) system or from a component of the glucose monitoring system,”, “from the EMR system or from the glucose monitoring system,”, “to an account management service executing on the server computing device,”, and “to control secure, authenticated data sharing between the glucose monitoring system and the EMR system” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
“stored by the glucose monitoring system and”, and “storing an association between the access code and the set of patient records;”, 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 22,
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 access patient records associated with a patient; receiving an indication that an access code associated with the patient has been successfully validated; authorizing access to a set of patient records associated with a patient account based on the indication of successful validation; and providing the EMR system with access to the set of patient records in response to the authorization, independently of access code generation and validation. 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:
“an account management service executing on a server computing device of a glucose monitoring system, the account management service comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of the server computing device, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising” 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:
“from an electronic medical records (EMR) system,”, “from an account access code service executing on the server computing device,” and “wherein the account management service enforces access control to the patient records” 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:
“from an electronic medical records (EMR) system,”, “from an account access code service executing on the server computing device,” and “wherein the account management service enforces access control to the patient records” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Belliveau et al. (US 2021/0142912; herein referred to as Belliveau).
As per claim 21,
Belliveau discloses an account access code service executing on a server computing device of a glucose monitoring system, the account access code service comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of the server computing device cause the one or more processors to perform, receiving, from an electronic medical records (EMR) system or from a component of the glucose monitoring system, a request associated with establishing secure data sharing for a patient; generating an access code associated with a set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient; storing an association between the access code and the set of patient records; receiving, from the EMR system or from the glucose monitoring system, the access code for validation; validating the access code based on at least the stored association and one or more validity conditions; and in response to successful validation of the access code, providing an indication of successful validation to an account management service executing on the server computing device, wherein the access code is usable to control secure, authenticated data sharing between the glucose monitoring system and the EMR system
(Paragraphs [0227]-[0237] of Belliveau. The teaching describes that a patient then uses the sensor, transmitter, and the professional product (or their own smart device) for the duration of the sensor session (step 496). The transmitter stores several weeks of data. By programming the product according to the user's technical skill level or according to the disease type (T-1 or T-2 or prediabetic), the HCP can be confident that a proper UI will be presented to the user about their measured glucose level. The data can generally be extracted in a very short time period, e.g., less than 5 or 10 seconds. The data may be extracted using wired or wireless communications, generally following some sort of interrogation signal by an HCP device (step 504). As part of the initial set up by the HCP, or as part of the data extraction, or even as part of a sensor session, various diagnostic routines can be run by the HCP device to confirm proper operation of the sensor and transmitter. The patient enters the HCP office, and the HCP provides, e.g., a transmitter package as noted above. Such a product includes a transmitter, a transmitter ID, e.g., using flexible electronics, or on the box or other portion of the product, and or optionally a professional product. The HCP begins a communication session and inquires about patient information, including, e.g., name, date of birth, email address, and so on, in order to enter the same into an HCP app (step 505). The HCP may verbally ask for patient consent for entering or using the patient's email address. As part of the above steps, the HCP may enter data identifying the transmitter (step 509). Such may also be communicated via wired or wireless communications after establishment of a suitable pairing relationship and communication session. In more detail, the HCP may manually enter transmitter information along with the patient information. The entered transmitter information may include a transmitter ID. By entering such information, the user account may be tied with the particular transmitter. On the server end, the transmitter is then associated with a patient account (or one is created) using the transmitter identification information (step 511). Once the account is created, the system may generate a unique code or token for the patient through which the patient may receive an app for their smart device or for their particular professional product. In more detail, the HCP may then provide an indication to the patient (step 513), e.g., a document or displayable file, the same including a code or token. The HCP may further provide instructions on how to download a monitoring or other associated app. The code may be scanned (or entered manually) and thereby configure an association between the patient and the downloaded app. That is, the code, after input into the smart device or professional product, may provide data such that the app is automatically associated with the patient, without the need for the patient to be burdened with additional data entry. In an alternative implementation, the HCP may cause the transmission of an invitation to the email address provided by the patient. It will be understood that such an invitation may also be sent via text message or the like. The patient may then download an application using the code (step 515). The application may be automatically associated with the patient account using the code (step 517). Alternatively, the app may be downloaded with the code entered after installation. In any case, the transmitter is linked to the user's account. The HCP portal then links the patient information with the patient downloaded app. The HCP portal may further automatically generate another account for the patient, e.g., an account available for future purchase of sensors and transmitter products or the like. The opening of this other account may involve another email or text invite to the patient.)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brown (US 2013/0085768).
As per claim 22,
Brown discloses an account management service executing on a server computing device of a glucose monitoring system, the account management service comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of the server computing device, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving, from an electronic medical records (EMR) system, a request to access patient records associated with a patient; receiving, from an account access code service executing on the server computing device, an indication that an access code associated with the patient has been successfully validated; authorizing access to a set of patient records associated with a patient account based on the indication of successful validation; and providing the EMR system with access to the set of patient records in response to the authorization, wherein the account management service enforces access control to the patient records independently of access code generation and validation:
(Paragraphs [0031], [0032], [0036] and [0085] and Figure 2 of Brown. The teaching describes a networked system for remotely monitoring an individual and for communicating information to the individual. The system includes a server and a remote interface for entering in the server a set of queries to be answered by the individual. The server is preferably a world wide web server and the remote interface is preferably a personal computer or network terminal connected to the web server via the Internet. The healthcare professional can transmit an authorization code to clearinghouse 54 that identifies the healthcare professional as an authorized user of the clearinghouse and, in addition, can transmit a signal representing the patient for which healthcare information is being sought. The clearinghouse-facsimile aspect of the invention is important because it allows a healthcare professional to receive timely information about patient condition and progress without requiring a visit by the patient (system user) and without requiring analysis or processing of test data by the healthcare professional. In this regard, the healthcare professional need not possess or even know how to use a computer and/or the software conventionally employed for analysis of blood glucose and other health monitoring data and information. Blood glucose test data or other information can then be downloaded for analysis and record keeping purposes. Alternatively, information such as changes in the user's treatment and monitoring regimen can be entered into system memory.)
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 first patient identifying information received with the request with second patient identifying information stored by the glucose monitoring system; in response to determining, based on the comparison, that the second set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient exist: attempting to generate an association between the first set of patient records stored by the EMR system and associated with the patient and the second set of patient records stored by the glucose monitoring system and associated with the patient; accessing an access code that is generated by the account access code service executing as a service of the application server and that is associated with the second 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: 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: 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 April 22, 2026 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 not directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” because the account access code service and the account management service provide sufficient limitations which keep the claims directed to a computer-centric application. These functions are not performable by a human and remain functions that a computer can only perform.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the AACS and AMS features themselves are not contained in the abstract idea, the functions they perform are more than capable of being performed by a human. Please see the above rejection.
The Applicant further argues that the claimed coordination between independent services to enforce secure communication provides a technical solution to computer security and interoperability problems.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has failed to identify what specific problem is being addressed. In the Examiner, estimation, the only technical features that are present, relating to security, is a basic authentication of information based on a code provided to the system. The claimed level of detail does not connote an improvement to security technology that one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized.
The Applicant further argues that the claimed server architecture provides a practical application of any alleged abstract idea that reduces unauthorized access, decoupling credential validation from the account state management and enabling secure interoperability between independent medical data systems.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has failed to provide any evidence of what the technical problem is and how the claimed limitations provide a solution to this problem. In the Examiner’s understanding, the basic authentication steps performed by the claimed invention are little more than providing a password to an EMR system or database to gain access to the secured data. These kind of features have existed for decades. The high level of generality of what it means to “validate” and “access” these data sources and codes are the cause of this lack of technical detail. The Applicant has provided detailed words in the lengthy independent claim, however, these details are devoid of actual technical details that would demonstrate an improvement to security technology.
The Applicant further argues that the independent claims provide an inventive concept which is not well-known, routine and conventional as evidenced by the Examiner’s own findings that the claims are free of prior art.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is improper to conflate the analyses of 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 102/103. Simply because an invention may be novel/non-obvious, this does not inherently mean that the invention is eligible. A novel abstract idea is still an abstract idea and therefore still ineligible. The claimed functions of the computer system are nothing more than applying the abstract idea to the environment of the computer and using computer functions that are well-known, routine and conventional, such as the transmission of data over a network, in which the signaling of the AACS and AMS are included.
The Applicant further argues that the claim does not merely say “use a computer to authorize access”, but rather provides specific steps of how authorization is being accomplished and technically enforced. This is precisely the type of implementation-level detail that the courts and USPTO recognizes as “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specific limitations of the independent claims do not relate to “significantly more” than the abstract idea. This is because the limitations do not satisfy the requirements of what is considered to be “significantly more” than the abstract idea for the reasons indicated above. The Applicant has failed to provide any evidence to the contrary or provide specific reasoning as to why the Examiner’s position is in error.
The Applicant further argues that the pending claims are similar to Example 48 of the Office Guidance in that the pending claims provide an improvement to technology.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has failed to provide any evidence of the alleged improvement to technology. The Applicant has not identified anything in their disclosure that would relate to what specific technical problem exists and how the claimed invention addresses this problem with a technical solution. The Applicant has merely presented vague assertions of problems with security, access and computer interoperability and a bare assertion of security improvement that is recited a such a high-level of generality that almost any existing authentication method could meet the requirements of the claim. Merely providing the password “password” to access the data stored in the glucose monitor would have been enough to access this data. From a technical standpoint, this is the one of most ineffective cybersecurity measure possible. The Examiner is not necessarily saying that the argued technical improvement is absent from the disclosure per se, but merely that it is completely absent from the pending claims.
The Applicant further argues that claims 21 and 22 are eligible for similar reasons as argued above.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights