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.
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1 – 9 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 – 9 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 – 9) which recite the abstract idea steps of
authenticate an identity of a party requesting access to the information associated with a patient account;
determine if the party requesting authorization is authorized to access the information associated with a patient account by comparing authorization information received against stored authorization information;
create records requests
receive medical information associated with the patient, convert the received medical information from an original format to a standardized, consolidated format;
compare the received medical information against the stored information associated with the patient account, to identify inconsistencies between the received medical information and the stored information associated with a patient account, and to correct the inconsistencies in the received medical information so identified based on the stored information associated with a patient account; and
record health information
These steps of claims 1 – 9, 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 – 9, 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 – 9, 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 – 9, 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 – 9; 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 – 9, 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: various modules in claims 1 – 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a written description rejection.
Claim 1 includes the limitation (Emphasis added):
a normalization module configured to compare the received medical information against the stored information associated with the patient account, to identify inconsistencies between the received medical information and the stored information associated with a patient account, and to correct the inconsistencies in the received medical information so identified based on the stored information associated with a patient account; and
In particular, the limitation requires a few steps
1 – compare received to stored
2 – identify inconsistencies
3 – correct inconsistencies
According to paragraph 73,
[00073] In embodiments, the determination of the appropriateness of correcting an inconsistency in the recently received patient record identified by normalization module 122 may be based one or more rule sets, each of which may be customized for any individual data element and/or patient. For example, if system 100 receives a patient's medical records from a first provider indicating that the patient has a shellfish allergy, and receives medical records from a second provider showing the patient has an allergy to shrimp, normalization module 122 may, after identifying the inconsistency between the records, apply rule sets related to, for example allergy identification and classification, to determine how such conflicting diagnoses should appear in the patient's consolidated record (e.g., patient health records 130). Normalization module 122 may then modify one more of the records accordingly. Further embodiments may provide for such rule sets to be created and/or modified by a provider having appropriate authority.
The comparisons occur through rules. However, how the inconsistencies are determined is not disclosed. If you look at the example, how does the system know that the patient did not change from all shellfish to just shrimp? How does the system know that there is an inconsistency and not a changed diagnosis? What are these “sets related to, for example allergy identification and classification?” All of these open questions are an example of where the Specification does not describe how “identify inconsistencies between the received medical information and the stored information associated with a patient account” occurs. It should be understood that if inconsistency identification was know then this does not need to be included.
The dependent claims are rejected for the same reason as the independent claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. The Specification does not disclose what or how these modules perform including any required algorithms. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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
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