DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 5/26/2026, the following has occurred: Claims 1 – 9 were amended; Claims 10 – 12 were added.
Claims 1 – 12 are pending.
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 – 12 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.
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process machine (claims 1 – 12) which recite the abstract idea steps of
receive, record, and store information associated with a patient account;
receive a request for medical information comprising authentication credentials and authorization information;
authenticate the request for medical information based on a comparison of the authentication credentials against stored authorization information associated with the patient account;
determine whether the request for medical information is authorized based on a comparison of the authorization information against stored authorization information associated with the patient account responsive to successful authentication of the request for medical information; and
transmit medical information associated with the patient account corresponding to the request for medical information, responsive to a positive authorization determination;
create a records request;
transmit the records request to the provider device via the network;
receive medical information associated with the patient responsive to the records request;
convert the medical information from an original format to a standardized format;
identify inconsistencies between the medical information in the standardized format and the stored information associated with the patient account based on a comparison therebetween;
determine if correction of the information associated with the patient account is appropriate based on any inconsistencies so identified and one or more rule sets; and
correct a portion of the information associated with the patient account responsive to a positive determination.
These steps of claims 1 – 12, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind 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 practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the server configured language, determine in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. Similarly, the limitation of receive, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the module language, normalize in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These steps of claims 1 – 12, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. It should be emphasized that the claimed invention, at a whole, is directed toward patient information. As stated by the last process limitation, “a recordation module configured to record health information to the information associated with a patient account on the storage device.” The Specification agrees with this rejection by stating
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0002] The purpose of this disclosure is to provide the means to empower patients to take control of their medical records and act as the bridge between different providers, researchers, and payers. It's a portability model that has the power to transform healthcare.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[00028] The present invention relates broadly and generally to systems and methods for health data exchange platforms, and more particularly, the aggregation, formatting, management, storage, and accessing of a patient's health data. This includes, among other things, the management, access authorization, and electronic exchange of health information between patients and their providers.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[00054] The present invention is directed to improved methods and systems for, among other things, the secure storage and exchange of sensitive medical data between authorized parties across a network. The configuration and use of the presently preferred embodiments are discussed in detail below. It should be appreciated, however, that the present invention provides many applicable inventive concepts that can be embodied in a wide variety of contexts other than networks for the storage and exchange of medical information. Accordingly, the specific embodiments discussed are merely illustrative of specific ways to make and use the invention, and do not limit the scope of the invention. In addition, the following terms shall have the associated meaning when used herein:
[000148] Additionally, embodiments of the Health ID Network systems such as those described in detail hereinabove may be operable to help facilitate highly trustworthy real-time health screening by enabling a patient to access their authenticated medical records from a user device via the patient application.
Therefore, the invention as claimed and disclosed is an abstract idea. The invention applies technology to the abstract idea to achieve all the benefits of applying the abstract idea. The invention is not directed towards a technological improvement to overcome a problem of technology. The result of the invention is information that has a potential usage. There is no practical application claimed or disclosed.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim 2 – 12, reciting particular aspects of how receiving data and processing data may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated 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 (such as recitation of wherein the server is configured with amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 12, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to 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 generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, 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 claims 1 – 12; receiving – normalizing - recording, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii))
Additional elements
Computer / server – see Ardhanari paragraph 33
User device - paragraph 54 but not limited to desktop computers, laptop computers, tablets, smartphones, etc
Api – paragraph 24 standardized API
Storage – paragraph 54 an electronic database
Network – paragraph 56 internet and/ or private network
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 12, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, receiving authorization information, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b), filed 5/26/2026, with respect to claims 1 – 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) of claims 1 – 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
2. Rejection of Claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
A. Applicable Framework
B. Claim 1 Is Directed to a Statutory Category
C. Step 2A, Prong One: Amended Claim 1 Does Not Merely Recite a Mental Process or Method of Organizing Human Activity
The Applicant states, “Considered as a whole, claim 1 is not directed merely to organizing or recording patient information, but to a particular server-executed, network-based workflow for authenticated and authorized access to medical information, generation and transmission of records requests to a provider device, receipt of provider-supplied medical information, format conversion, inconsistency identification, rule-set-based correction, and storage.” The Applicant’s first clause is, “claim 1 is not directed merely to organizing or recording patient information” which places the invention solidly within a certain method of organizing human activity. The Applicant’s second claims “but to a particular…” is the application of that abstract idea to technology to obtain the benefits of applying that abstract idea to technology.
The Applicant states, “A person cannot mentally receive, via a network and from a user device …” However, a person can receive information, process it, and communicate the results. The generic computer processing does not change the abstract idea.
The Applicant further states, “These limitations require a specifically configured server that stores and executes software instructions to perform network-based authentication, authorization, controlled transmission, records-request generation, format conversion, inconsistency identification, rule-set-based correction, and storage operations, and therefore are not practically performable in the human mind.” The specification does not describe the server as “specifically configured.” The Applicant is describing actions, described at a high level, and in functional terms. The Specification does not describe how these actions must occur.
The Applicant states, “The claim is also not properly characterized as a mere method of organizing human activity. Although healthcare authorization and access may involve human actors, the claim is directed to a specific technical implementation for secure electronic health information exchange and normalization across disparate record sources and formats. The amended claim is focused on the operation of a computer-implemented health information exchange platform, not on a human administrative practice.” The Examiner agrees that the invention is a “technical implementation” of an abstract idea. As confirmed by the specification, the amended claim is not focused upon the operation of a computer-implemented health information exchange platform, but is executed by a computer-implemented health information exchange platform (paragraphs 77, 79, and 106).
D. Step 2A, Prong Two: Even If an Abstract Idea Were Identified, the Claim Integrates It Into a Practical Application
The Applicant states, “Even assuming, solely for the sake of argument, that some aspect of the claim could be characterized as involving access management or information comparison, amended claim 1 integrates any such concept into a practical application.” The Applicant’s opinion is noted.
1. The Claim Is Directed to a Particular Computerized Health Information Exchange Workflow
The Applicant states, “That is a concrete technical workflow implemented through specific system components and data-processing operations. The claim therefore applies any alleged abstract concept in a meaningful way within a particular technological environment.” However, this “technological environment” is not an area that overcomes the idea that the invention, as claimed and understood as a whole, applies the abstract idea to technology.
The Claim Improves Computer-Related Health Information Exchange Technology
The Applicant states, “The specification identifies the technical challenge of securely exchanging, consolidating, and maintaining medical records received from multiple provider systems and other sources, including records that may arrive in inconsistent and non-standardized formats. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ [00027], [00030]-[00032], [00054], [00070]-[00075].” The Specification does not state that there is a problem with technology. Rather, the Specification describes how technology overcomes a human problem such as “proprietary” and “inaccurate or incomplete data provided by the patient.”
The Applicant states, “These are not merely token post-solution data-handling steps. Rather, they improve the functioning of the health information exchange system itself by enabling more secure and reliable electronic record exchange, comparison, correction, and storage using the claimed server-executed workflow.” The Specification does not describe a technological improvement. The Applicant’s opinions are not ground in facts. Further arguments towards a technological improvement are considered moot.
3. The Claim Does More Than Link an Idea to a Generic Computer Environment
The Applicant states, “Respectfully, amended claim 1 does more than recite a generic server as a nominal tool. It recites a particular sequence of operations carried out by the server in conjunction with the network, the user device, the provider device, and the storage …” However, the Applicant is listing a series of functional steps performed by a generic computer. There is no practical application but merely an application of technology.
E. Step 2B: Amended Claim 1 Recites Significantly More Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea
1. The Individual Elements Are Not Mere Conventional Add-Ons to an Abstract Idea
The Applicant states, “Those limitations are neither incidental nor token. They meaningfully constrain how the claimed system operates.” However, the invention is directed towards an application of an abstract idea to technology and not a technological improvement.
2. The Ordered Combination Provides Significantly More
The Applicant states, “That ordered combination supplies significantly more than any alleged abstract idea because it defines a concrete and technically meaningful architecture for electronic record exchange, comparison, correction, and storage.” However, the invention is directed towards an application of an abstract idea to technology and not a technological improvement.
3. The Claim Is Not Directed to a Preemptive Result
The Applicant states, “The amended claim does not preempt all ways of exchanging healthcare information, authorizing access, or comparing records.” As the Applicant knows, preemption is only part of the test for abstractness. MPEP 2106.04
While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10-11 n.14 (1981) (“We rejected in Flook the argument that because all possible uses of the mathematical formula were not pre-empted, the claim should be eligible for patent protection”). See also Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics, 839 F.3d at 1150, 120 USPQ2d at 1483; FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1320-21, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Sequenom, 788 F.3d at 1379, 115 USPQ2d at 1158. Several Federal Circuit decisions, however, have noted the absence of preemption when finding claims eligible under the Alice/Mayo test. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102-03 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-52, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zizi et al. Pub. No.: US 2022/0197986 a method for authenticating a user with an electronic device is disclosed
Ardhanari et al. Pub. No.: US 2024/0143838 apparatus for anonymizing user data is disclosed
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 Neal R Sereboff whose telephone number is (571)270-1373. The examiner can normally be reached M - T, M - F 8AM - 6PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571)272-6773. 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.
/NEAL SEREBOFF/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights