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 .
Status of the Claims
The status of the claims as of the response filed 3/13/2026 is as follows: Claims 25-26 and 28 are cancelled, and all previously given rejections for these claims are considered moot. Claims 1-5, 8, 13-17, 19-21, 24, 27, and 30 are currently amended. Claims 6-7, 9-12, 18, 22-23, and 29 are original. Claims 31-33 are new. Claims 1-24, 27, and 29-33 are currently pending in the application and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
Objection to Claims
Claims 29 and 30 are no longer substantial duplicates, and thus the corresponding objection is withdrawn.
Rejection Under 35 USC 112(b)
Claims 17 and 20 have been amended to sufficiently clarify the indefinite elements and limitations such that the corresponding 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Rejection Under 35 USC 101
The claims have been amended but the 35 USC 101 rejections are upheld.
Rejection Under 35 USC 102/103
The amendments made to the claims introduce limitations that are not fully addressed in the previous office action, and thus the corresponding 35 USC 102/103 rejections are withdrawn. However, Examiner will consider the amended claims in light of an updated prior art search and address their patentability with respect to prior art below.
Response to Arguments
Rejection Under 35 USC 101
On pages 15-16 of the response filed 3/13/2026 Applicant argues that amended claim 1 does not recite a mental process, at least because “a human cannot mentally receive electronic messages from multiple sources that use different encoding standards,” “parsing such electronic messages into their constituent segments and fields is an inherently technical operation that cannot practically be performed mentally,” and “the generation of a unified data structure that consolidates laboratory results from electronic messages received from multiple sources using different encoding standards is a technical data process operation, not a mental process.” Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but are not persuasive. Examiner agrees that a human cannot mentally receive electronic messages, and notes that this feature of the claim has not been characterized as part of the mental process and has instead been evaluated as an additional element under Steps 2A – Prong 2 and 2B (see paras. 33-34 & 38 of the non-final rejection mailed 11/14/2025). However, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the parsing and generating steps are inherently technical and cannot practically be performed mentally; a human actor would be capable of looking at the alphanumeric characters encoded in an electronic message (e.g. as displayed on a screen) and parsing it into different segments (see an example common message format represented in Fig. 4 of the Aronson reference, which includes human-interpretable text that a human actor could mentally look at and break into different segments), as well as compiling a unified data structure (e.g. a list or table) of at least two mapped/standardized messages. Accordingly, Examiner maintains that claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the form of a mental process.
On pages 16-17 Applicant argues that the “sequential process of storing mappings and then using those stored mappings to process subsequent messages [as in claim 16] is fundamentally a computer-implemented data processing operation that cannot be performed mentally” and the “conditional, automated application of mappings previously-stored in memory to subsequently-received electronic processes is not a mental process.” Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but are not persuasive. Examiner submits that a sequential workflow of storing code or concept mappings (e.g. in a table) and then using those stored mappings to conditionally process subsequent messages is not inherently technical, and could be achieved by a human actor creating and maintaining a mapping reference tool (e.g. a table or dictionary) and using the mapping tool to map or translate codes of new laboratory result messages in a sequential processing pipeline. The fact that such messages are electronic and that the processing occurs automatically in a computerized environment does not preclude the underlying functions from being practically performable by a human actor, and instead amounts to instructions to “apply” the otherwise-abstract idea using high-level computing components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
On pages 17-18 Applicant argues that amended claim 1 provides a technological improvement to healthcare information systems by generating a unified data structure which “enables interoperability across disparate laboratory messaging systems.” Applicant similarly asserts that amended claim 16 provides a technological improvement by storing mappings and using those mappings during subsequent message processing which “improves the efficiency and consistency of laboratory result mapping across multiple electronic messages.” Applicant concludes that “the claims do not merely automate a manual process using generic computer components,” and instead “recite specific technical operations for processing structured electronic messages from multiple sources that use different encoding standards and generating unified data structures that consolidate the laboratory results into a unified mapping scheme” which “provide a technological improvement to healthcare information systems by enabling accurate, consistent mapping of laboratory results regardless of the source or encoding standard used.”
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but are not persuasive. Examiner notes that the problem of different healthcare entities or institutions utilizing different informational formats, coding schemes, semantic nomenclatures, etc. that could benefit from standardization/translation existed long before computing technology, and the underlying process of parsing and converting institution-specific codes or identifiers in messages to a standardized vocabulary is an abstract process that could otherwise be accomplished by a human actor mentally or with aid of pen and paper, as explained above. The storage of the standardized messages in a unified data structure (e.g. a list, table, etc.) as well as the sequential processing of new messages utilizing existing mapping tools are also abstract recordkeeping functions that could be accomplished by a human actor. Examiner maintains that the use of computerized components like a processor and memory to perform such functions electronically amount to mere instructions to “apply” the abstract functions such that they occur in an automated and/or digitized manner, and thus do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application via providing a technical improvement or an inventive concept. Accordingly, the 35 USC 101 rejections are upheld, as explained in more detail below.
Rejection Under 35 USC 102/103
On pages 12-13 Applicant argues that the Aronson reference “fails to describe obtaining laboratory results encoded using multiple different sets of laboratory result identifiers and generating a unified data structure that encodes laboratory segments mapped to identifiers from a set of standard laboratory result identifiers.” Applicant specifically asserts that “Aronson’s system is designed as a message routing and translation gateway between laboratories and providers, not a system for unifying laboratory results encoded in different standards into a unified data structure.” Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but are not persuasive. Aronson discloses a bioinformatics database 804 to which messages that have been translated/mapped from many source-specific forms to the canonical/standard form may be added (see Fig. 8 & [0108]-[0114]), which Examiner submits is functionally equivalent to obtaining laboratory results encoded using multiple different sets of laboratory result identifiers and generating a unified data structure that encodes the plurality of laboratory result segments mapped to identifiers from the set of standard laboratory result identifiers as required by amended claims 1 and 24.
On pages 14-15 Applicant argues that “Aronson does not disclose storing a map between field value(s) and a standard laboratory result identifier after processing a first message, and then using that stored map to identify matching field value(s) in a subsequently processed message.” Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but are not persuasive. Examiner submits that Aronson does disclose storing a map between field values of given incoming message nomenclatures to a standard laboratory result identifier for use at any time (see storage of content translators, dictionaries, code translation tables, etc. in Figs. 2-3 & 6), which would necessarily include after processing a first message, as well as for use with any subsequently processed messages. Examiner concedes that Aronson does not explicitly mention the sequential processing of at least two messages, but submits that one of ordinary skill in the art reading the entirety of the disclosure which contemplates processing many messages as well as use of features of the system in the “long term” (see [0060]) would find it obvious to specify that a second message is processed subsequent to the processing of a first message and utilizing the same stored mapping tools (as explained in more detail below).
For the reasons outlined above, Examiner maintains that the presently cited prior art references do teach the amended claims, as explained in more detail in the updated 35 USC 102 & 103 rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-15, 31, and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 14 and 15 each recite “theset” as one word in line 2, which should be amended to “the set” as two words.
Claim 31 recites “result identifers” in line 4, which should be amended to “result identifiers.”
Claim 33 recites “identifierassociated” as one word in line 2, which should be amended to “identifier associated” as two words.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to contain a reference to a claim previously set forth. Claim 33 depends on itself, such that it does not contain a reference to a claim previously set forth. For purposes of examination, claim 33 will be interpreted as being dependent on claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-24, 27, and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
In the instant case, claims 1-23 are directed to methods (i.e. processes), claims 24-28 are directed to systems (i.e. machines), and claims 29-30 are directed to at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e. a manufacture). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent claims 1, 16, 25, and 28 recite steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations and but for the recitation of high-level computing components, cover mental processes. Specifically, claim 1 recites:
A method for processing electronic messages encoding laboratory results with different standards to generate a unified mapping of laboratory test results to laboratory result identifiers, comprising: using at least one hardware processor to perform:
receiving, from a plurality of sources, a plurality of electronic messages encoding laboratory results using multiple different standards that use different sets of laboratory result identifiers;
parsing the plurality of electronic messages to obtain a plurality of laboratory result segments each comprising data of a particular laboratory result;
mapping each of at least some of the plurality of laboratory result segments to an identifier from a set of standard laboratory result identifiers, the mapping comprising:
identifying a particular identifier associated with the laboratory result segment in an encoding of a respective one or the plurality of electronic messages from which the laboratory segment was obtained; and
mapping, using the particular identifier, the laboratory result segment to one of the set of standard laboratory result identifiers; and
generating a unified data structure encoding the plurality of laboratory result segments mapped to identifiers from the set of standard laboratory result identifiers.
The italicized functions, when considered as a whole, describe a laboratory message translation operation that a human actor such as a medical coder could achieve mentally or with aid of pen and paper. For example, a coder could observe a plurality of electronic laboratory messages that encode laboratory results according to different nomenclatures or standards, parse the messages into different segments, identify an appropriate standard code that corresponds to the results in a laboratory result segment or field to map the message segment, and generate a unified data structure of the mapped message segments (e.g. by creating a list, table, or other recordkeeping structure of the mapped messages). Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the form of a certain mental process. Claim 24 recites substantially similar subject matter and is also found to recite an abstract idea under a similar analysis.
Similarly, claim 16 recites:
A method for processing electronic messages encoding laboratory results with different standards to generate a unified mapping of laboratory test results to laboratory result identifiers, comprising: using at least one hardware processor to perform:
receiving a plurality of electronic messages encoding laboratory results using multiple standards that use different sets of laboratory identifiers;
processing a first electronic message of the plurality of electronic messages, the first electronic message comprising a first laboratory result segment comprising a first laboratory result, the processing comprising:
determining a mapping between one or more field values of the first laboratory result segment and a standard laboratory result identifier from the set of standard laboratory result identifiers;
storing, in memory, a map between the one or more field values and the standard laboratory result identifier;
associating the first laboratory result segment with the standard laboratory result identifier to generate a first mapped laboratory result segment;
processing one or more electronic messages of the plurality of electronic messages subsequent to processing the first electronic message, the processing comprising:
determining that one or more laboratory result segments in the one or more electronic messages include the one or more field values mapped to the standard laboratory result identifier in the memory;
in response to determining that the one or more laboratory result segments include the one or more field values mapped to the standard laboratory result identifier in the memory: associating the one or more laboratory result segments with the standard laboratory result identifier mapped to the one or more field values to generate one or more additional mapped laboratory result segments.
The italicized functions, when considered as a whole, describe a laboratory message translation workflow that a human actor such as a medical coder could achieve mentally or with aid of pen and paper. For example, a coder could observe a first electronic laboratory message encoded with different formats or nomenclatures in a laboratory result segment or field, determine an appropriate mapping between the field values and reference dictionary, translation table, or other mapping tool that the coder has stored/maintained either mentally or on paper to associate the appropriate standard code with the message segment, and repeat the process with a subsequent electronic message. Accordingly, claim 16 recites an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. Claim 27 recites substantially similar subject matter and is also found to recite an abstract idea under a similar analysis.
Dependent claims 2-15, 17-23, and 29-33 inherit the limitations that recite an abstract idea from their dependence on claims 1 or 16, and thus these claims also recite an abstract idea under the Step 2A – Prong 1 analysis. In addition, claims 2-15, 17-23, and 31-33 recite additional limitations that further describe the abstract idea identified in the independent claims.
Specifically, claims 2 and 17 specify that the message is an HL7 message, which a is a type of message that a human actor would be capable of observing and mapping.
Claim 3 specifies that the laboratory result segment comprises an OBX segment, which is a type of section in an HL7 message that a human actor would be capable of observing and extracting data from for mapping purposes.
Claims 4 and 18 specify that the set of standard laboratory result identifiers are LOINC codes, which are types of codes that a human actor would be capable of thinking about and identifying for segments of lab messages.
Claim 5 recites that identifying the particular identifier comprises searching one or more field values of the laboratory result segment for an occurrence of specific character strings and identifying the associated LOINC code, which a human actor could achieve by visually searching through the contents of the message segment and picking out instances of those character strings, then identifying an associated LOINC code, e.g. from the message itself or from the LOINC vocabulary.
Claim 6 recites searching the one or more field values of the laboratory result segment specifically in an OBX3.3 or OBX-3.6 subfield for an occurrence of the specific character strings, which a human actor could achieve by visually searching through the contents of these message segment subfields and picking out instances of those character strings.
Claim 7 recites that identifying the associated LOINC code comprises identifying a field value of an OBX-3.1 and/or OBX-3.4 subfield, which a human actor could achieve by searching these subfields for specific LOINC codes.
Claim 8 recites that identifying the particular identifier comprises identifying a source-specific laboratory result identifier and mapping the result segment to the identifier by searching a data structure associating source-specific laboratory result identifiers with standard laboratory result identifiers, which a human actor could achieve by looking through the message for any lab-specific local codes and using a predefined dictionary or code translation table to map the local codes to an accepted standard (e.g. LOINC).
Claim 9 specifies that identifying the source-specific laboratory result identifier comprises searching one or more field values of the laboratory result segment for the occurrence of specific character strings and identifying the associated source-specific laboratory result identifier, which a human actor could achieve by visually searching through the contents of the message segment and picking out instances of those character strings, then identifying an associated lab-specific code, e.g. from the message itself or from a known lab-specific vocabulary.
Claim 10 recites searching one or more field values of the laboratory result segment specifically in an OBX3.3 or OBX-3.6 subfield for an occurrence of the specific character strings, which a human actor could achieve by visually searching through the contents of these message segment subfields and picking out instances of those character strings.
Claim 11 recites that identifying the associated source-specific code comprises identifying a field value of an OBX-3.1 and/or OBX-3.4 subfield, which a human actor could achieve by searching these subfields for specific lab-specific codes.
Claims 12 and 19-20 recite associating the laboratory result segment with a system-specific laboratory result identifier, which a human actor could achieve by making a mental or physical note about the preferred code format or vocabulary of an intended recipient of the message.
Claims 13 and 21 recites using the unified data structure or mapped laboratory result segment during clinical treatment of a patient and/or assessment of one or more aspects of clinical trial design or performance, with claims 14-15 and 22-23 providing further examples of each of these types of analyses. A human actor could achieve these functions by thinking about or analyzing the consolidated mapped result segments when making diagnostic/treatment decisions and/or when planning out or evaluating performance of clinical research activities.
Claim 31 recites additional storing and determining steps to accomplish mapping functions, which a human actor could achieve as explained for similar steps in claims 1 and/or 16 above.
Claim 32 recites mapping a first segment to a first identifier by first determining that there is no identifier associated with the first segment and then generating a mapping between the segment and the first identifier, which a human actor could achieve by thinking about whether there is an appropriate standard code for a given localized code currently captured in a reference mapping tool, and if not, adding one as appropriate to update their working reference tool.
Claim 33 recites identifying the particular identifier by searching one or more field values of the segment for occurrence of a target string value and extracting the identifier from a sub-field of the field, which a human actor could accomplish by visually searching through the contents of the message segment and picking out instances of predefined character strings, then identifying associated standard codes mapped to those strings, e.g. in a LOINC vocabulary.
However, recitation of an abstract idea is not the end of the analysis. Each of the claims must be analyzed for additional elements that indicate the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application to determine whether the claim is considered to be “directed to” an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claims 1, 16, 24, and 27 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of claims 1, 16, 24, and 27 include use of at least one hardware processor to perform the method/functions, as well as receipt of electronic messages. Claims 24 and 27 further recite at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing processor-executable
instructions that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one
hardware processor to perform the functions, while claims 16 and 27 also recite a memory in which the map is stored. These computer components, when considered in the context of each claim as a whole, merely serve to automate electronic message translation/mapping steps that could otherwise be achieved as a mental process (as described above), and thus amount to instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). For example, a human actor can observe, parse, and search through the contents and fields of electronic messages (e.g. in HL7 format) to sequentially translate/map the messages into appropriate standardized codes (e.g. LOINC codes) identified from a stored/maintained reference dictionary or table and consolidate the mapped messages into a list, table, or other unified data structure. The use of a hardware processor executing stored instructions and a memory to achieve these steps thus merely digitizes and/or automates the otherwise-abstract functions by invoking high-level computing components as tools. Further, the step of receiving the electronic messages (presumably over an electronic network or other digital channel of communication) amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), because it is broadly invoked as a necessary step for obtaining the messages that are intended to be parsed/mapped by the main steps of the invention. Accordingly, claims 1, 16, 24, and 27 as a whole are each directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application.
The judicial exception recited in dependent claims 2-15, 17-23, and 29-33 is also not integrated into a practical application under a similar analysis as above. Claims 2-15, 17-23, and 31-33 merely further describe the abstract idea of the independent claims, without introducing any new additional elements of their own, such that they do not provide integration into a practical application. Claims 29-30 recite additional computing hardware elements (e.g. at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium working together with the processor to implement the functions of the independent claims), which also amount to instructions to “apply” the exception in a computing environment as explained for similar computing components recited in the independent claims.
Accordingly, the additional elements of claims 1-24, 27, and 29-33 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1-24, 27, and 29-33 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and memory for performing the parsing, mapping, identifying, generating, searching, using, processing, determining, storing, associating, etc. steps of the invention amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As evidence of the generic nature of the above recited additional elements, Examiner notes paras. [0068]-[0076] of Applicant’s specification, where the computer hardware and/or software elements are described as encompassing various known components, such as those “commercially available” and “known in the art.”
Regarding the functional additional element, as noted above, the step of receiving electronic messages amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering. This activity is also nothing more than that recognized as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function performed using generic computer components; for example, receiving or transmitting data over a network is recognized as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function previously known to the industry, as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Analyzing these additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the elements individually; the overall effect of the computer implementation and receipt of electronic messages in combination is to digitize and/or automate a laboratory message translation workflow that could otherwise be achieved as a mental process. Thus, when considered as a whole and in combination, claims 1-24, 27, and 29-33 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 12-15, 24, 29, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aronson et al. (US 20080270438 A1).
Claims 1 and 24
Aronson teaches a method for processing electronic messages encoding laboratory results with different standards to generate a unified mapping of laboratory test results to laboratory result identifiers, comprising: using at least one hardware processor (Aronson abstract, [0119], noting a medical laboratory report message gateway that translates between source and destination formats that is implemented with a processor executing instructions stored in memory) to perform:
receiving, from a plurality of sources, a plurality of electronic messages encoding laboratory results using multiple different standards that use different sets of laboratory result identifiers (Aronson [0050], [0082], noting the gateway electronically receives messages (including laboratory test results) in source-specific formats (i.e. in forms that encode laboratory results via different standards) from multiple laboratories);
parsing the plurality of electronic messages to obtain a plurality of laboratory result segments each comprising data of a particular laboratory result (Aronson Figs. 2-3, [0068], [0073], noting a message syntax parser receives incoming messages and parses them into field values; such fields can include laboratory results from an OBX segment of an HL7 message per Fig. 4 & [0063]-[0064]);
mapping each of at least some of the plurality of laboratory result segments to an identifier from a set of standard laboratory result identifiers, the mapping comprising: identifying a particular identifier associated with the laboratory result segment in an encoding of a respective one or the plurality of electronic messages from which the laboratory segment was obtained; and mapping, using the particular identifier, the laboratory result segment to one of the set of standard laboratory result identifiers (Aronson Fig. 3, [0076]-[0080], [0082]-[0084], [0086]-[0087], noting a content translator receives the parsed field values of the source-specific message content and identifies (i.e. maps) corresponding canonical or standard laboratory result identifiers (e.g. a LOINC code as in [0087]) using a dictionary, ontology, code translation table, or other suitable database); and
generating a unified data structure encoding the plurality of laboratory result segments mapped to identifiers from the set of standard laboratory result identifiers (Aronson Fig. 8, [0108]-[0114], noting mapped messages may be added to bioinformatics database 804 which permits aggregate research and analysis of all the messages, i.e. a unified data structure that encodes the message segments mapped to standard identifiers is generated).
Claim 24 recites substantially similar subject matter as claim 1, and is also rejected as above.
Claim 2
Aronson teaches the method according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the plurality of electronic messages comprise an HL7 message (Aronson Fig. 4, [0063], noting the incoming messages can be in HL7 format).
Claim 3
Aronson teaches the method according to claim 2, and further teaches wherein parsing the plurality of electronic messages to obtain the plurality of laboratory segments comprises parsing the HL7 message to obtain an OBX segment (Aronson Fig. 4, [0064], [0070], [0082]-[0083], noting the parsed HL7 message can include laboratory results stored in an OBX segment).
Claim 4
Aronson teaches the method according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the set of standard laboratory result identifier comprises LOINC codes (Aronson [0050], [0087], noting the canonical/common code identified for and mapped to the message can be a LOINC code).
Claim 8
Aronson teaches the method according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein: identifying the particular identifier associated with the laboratory result segment comprises identifying a source-specific laboratory result identifier; and mapping, using the particular identifier, the laboratory result segment to one of the set of standard laboratory result identifiers comprises searching a data structure associating source-specific laboratory result identifiers with standard laboratory result identifiers (Aronson [0076]-[0080], [0082]-[0083], [0086]-[0087], [0090], noting incoming messages are translated to a canonical or standard format by selecting a source-specific translator that identifies a particular source-specific code in parsed segments of an incoming message and searches a dictionary, ontology, code translation table, or other suitable database (i.e. a data structure) that associates the source-specific codes to the canonical/ standard codes).
Claim 12
Aronson teaches the method according to claim 1, and further teaches associating the laboratory result segment with a system-specific laboratory result identifier (Aronson [0091], [0103], noting the system identifies a code format of the ultimate recipient of a message so that the incoming message may be translated into an outgoing message with the recipient-specific code format).
Claim 13
Aronson teaches the method according to claim 1, and further teaches using the unified data structure encoding the plurality of laboratory segments mapped to the identifiers from the set of standard laboratory result identifiers during clinical treatment of a patient and/or assessment of one or more aspects of clinical trial design or performance (Aronson abstract, [0114], noting data in the bioinformatics database (i.e. the unified data structure, as explained above) may be used “for research or patient care purposes,” e.g. as a basis of new drug targets, new molecular diagnostic tests focused on improving patient care, finding correlations among data groups or clusters. Such purposes are considered equivalent to use “during clinical treatment of a patient” because drugs or diagnostic tests are identified, as well as use “during assessment of one or more aspects of clinical trial design or performance” because research decisions like selecting new drug targets and analyzing patient groups or clusters are contemplated).
Claim 14
Aronson teaches the method according to claim 13, and further teaches wherein using the unified data structure encoding the plurality of laboratory segments mapped to the identifiers from the set of standard laboratory result identifiers during clinical treatment of a patient comprises diagnosing the patient with a disease, suggesting a treatment for the patient, and/or calculating a dosage of a medication based on at least one mapped laboratory result segment in the unified data structure (Aronson abstract, [0114], noting data in the bioinformatics database (i.e. the unified data structure, as explained above) may be used “for research or patient care purposes,” e.g. as a basis of new drug targets or new molecular diagnostic tests focused on improving patient care, which are considered equivalent to suggesting a treatment (e.g. a new drug) for a patient “based on” at least one mapped laboratory result segment in the unified data structure).
Claim 15
Aronson teaches the method according to claim 13, and further teaches wherein using the unified data structure encoding the plurality of laboratory segments mapped to the identifiers from the set of standard laboratory result identifiers during assessment of one or more aspects of clinical trial design or performance comprises determining whether a patient falls within a cohort and/or evaluating one or more effects of a medical treatment on a patient enrolled in a clinical trial based on at least one mapped laboratory result segment in the unified data structure (Aronson abstract, [0114], noting data in the bioinformatics database (i.e. the unified data structure, as explained above) may be used “for research or patient care purposes,” e.g. as a basis of finding correlations among data groups or clusters, considered equivalent to determining whether a patient falls within a cohort because the system is discovering groups or clusters in the data (e.g. cohorts) for research purposes).
Claim 29
Aronson teaches at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform a method according to claim 1 (Aronson [0119], noting a medical laboratory report message gateway is implemented with a processor executing instructions stored in memory; see claim 1 for mappings of functions).
Claim 31
Aronson teaches the method according to claim 1, and further teaches
storing a mapping between: (1) one or more field values from a first laboratory result segment of the plurality of laboratory result segments, and (2) a first standard laboratory identifier of the set of standard laboratory result identifiers (Aronson [0076]-[0080], [0082]-[0083], noting the gateway includes various mapping tools like translators, a dictionary, code translation tables, etc. that represent a map between field values of a specific client form and standard laboratory result identifiers like LOINC codes; such tools would be stored in a memory of the system as in [0118]-[0119]);
determining that a second laboratory result segment of the plurality of laboratory segments includes the one or more field values mapped to the first standard laboratory identifier; and in response to determining that the second laboratory result segment includes the one or more field values mapped to the first standard laboratory identifier: storing, in the unified data structure, encoding the second laboratory result segment mapped to the first standard laboratory identifier (Aronson Fig. 3, [0076]-[0080], [0082]-[0084], [0086]-[0087], noting a content translator receives parsed field values of the source-specific message contents (which can include multiple segments that are mapped per [0064] & [0070]) and identifies and associates corresponding existing canonical or standard laboratory result identifiers to the respective segments, considered equivalent to determining that a given message segment’s source-specific field values match those that are already mapped to a canonical standard in a dictionary, translation table, or other existing mapping tool. Translated/mapped messages may be stored in the bioinformatics database (i.e. unified data structure) as in Fig. 8 & [0108]-[0114]).
Claim 33
Aronson teaches the method according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein identifying the particular identifier associated with the laboratory result segment comprises: searching one or more field values of the laboratory result segment for occurrence of at least one target string value; when the at least one target string value is identified in a field of the one or more fields, extracting the particular identifier from a sub-field of the field (Aronson [0063]-[0064], [0082]-[0083], noting the system detects and extracts lab codes and other identifiers used in OBX fields (which would include any sub-fields) of an incoming HL7 message, e.g. by searching through the field values for specific target alphanumeric characters or strings).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16-23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aronson.
Claims 16 and 27
Aronson teaches a method for processing electronic messages encoding laboratory results with different standards to generate a unified mapping of laboratory test results to laboratory result identifiers, comprising: using at least one hardware processor (Aronson abstract, [0119], noting a medical laboratory report message gateway that translates between source and destination formats that is implemented with a processor executing instructions stored in memory) to perform:
receiving a plurality of electronic messages encoding laboratory results using multiple standards that use different sets of laboratory identifiers (Aronson [0050], [0082], noting the gateway electronically receives messages (including laboratory test results) in source-specific formats (i.e. in forms that encode laboratory results via different standards) from multiple laboratories);
processing a first electronic message of the plurality of electronic messages, the first electronic message comprising a first laboratory result segment comprising a first laboratory result, the processing comprising (Aronson Fig. 2, [0050], noting the gateway processes the messages (which can include laboratory test results, e.g. in an OBX laboratory result segment in an HL7 message per Fig. 4 & [0063]-[0064]) to translate them to a canonical form):
determining a mapping between one or more field values of the first laboratory result segment and a standard laboratory result identifier from the set of standard laboratory result identifiers (Aronson Fig. 3, [0076]-[0080], [0082]-[0084], [0086]-[0087], noting a content translator receives parsed field values of source-specific message content and identifies (i.e. determines a mapping between) corresponding canonical or standard laboratory result identifiers (e.g. a LOINC code as in [0087]) using a dictionary, ontology, code translation table, or other suitable database);
storing, in memory, a map between the one or more field values and the standard laboratory result identifier (Aronson [0076]-[0080], [0082]-[0083], noting the gateway includes various mapping tools like translators, a dictionary, code translation tables, etc. that represent a map between field values of a specific client form and standard laboratory result identifiers like LOINC codes; such tools would be stored in a memory of the system as in [0118]-[0119]); and
associating the first laboratory result segment with the standard laboratory result identifier to generate a first mapped laboratory result segment (Aronson Fig. 3, [0076]-[0080], [0082]-[0084], [0086]-[0087], noting a content translator receives parsed field values of the source-specific message contents and identifies and associates corresponding canonical or standard laboratory result identifiers to respective segments (e.g. a LOINC code as in [0087]));
processing one or more electronic messages of the plurality of electronic messages (Aronson Fig. 2, [0050], noting the gateway processes the messages (i.e. multiple messages beyond a single first message) to translate them to a canonical form), the processing comprising:
determining that one or more laboratory result segments in the one or more electronic messages include the one or more field values mapped to the standard laboratory result identifier in the memory; in response to determining that the one or more laboratory result segments include the one or more field values mapped to the standard laboratory result identifier in the memory: associating the one or more laboratory result segments with the standard laboratory result identifier mapped to the one or more field values to generate one or more additional mapped laboratory result segments (Aronson Fig. 3, [0076]-[0080], [0082]-[0084], [0086]-[0087], noting a content translator receives parsed field values of the source-specific message segment contents and identifies and associates corresponding existing canonical or standard laboratory result identifiers to the respective segments, considered equivalent to determining that an incoming message’s source-specific field values match those that are already mapped to a canonical standard in a dictionary, translation table, or other existing mapping tool and associating the corresponding canonical standard to the respective message segment).
In summary, Aronson teaches a method of using an electronic laboratory message translation gateway to convert a plurality of incoming messages to a canonical form. Though one of ordinary skill in the art would likely understand that processing multiple messages for multiple laboratories implies a sequential processing ability, Aronson fails to explicitly disclose that one or more messages are processed subsequent to processing the first electronic message as recited in the instant claim. However, Aronson further notes that an interface intermediary to the gateway may be used “on a long-term or interim basis” (see [0060]), indicating that the system is intended for use more than once over a span of time. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to specify that a given incoming message is processed subsequent to processing of a first message in order to facilitate long-term and repeated use of the gateway system over time by multiple entities (as suggested by Aronson Figs. 2 & 7, [0060]).
Claim 27 recites substantially similar subject matter as claim 16, and is also rejected as above.
Claim 17
Aronson teaches the method according to claim 16, and further teaches wherein the plurality of electronic message comprise at least one HL7 message (Aronson Fig. 4, [0063], noting the incoming message can be in HL7 format).
Claim 18
Aronson teaches the method according to claim 16, and further teaches wherein the standard laboratory result identifier is a LOINC code (Aronson [0050], [0087], noting the canonical/common code identified for and mapped to the message can be a LOINC code).
Claim 19
Aronson teaches the method according to claim 16, and further teaches associating the first laboratory result segment with a system-specific laboratory result identifier (Aronson [0091], [0103], noting the system identifies a code format of the ultimate recipient of a message so that the incoming message may be translated into an outgoing message with the recipient-specific code format).
Claim 20
Aronson teaches the method according to claim 19, and further teaches associating the one or more laboratory segments with the system-specific laboratory result identifier (Aronson [0064], [0070], noting the messages typically include multiple segments that can be translated/mapped, i.e. including translation to the recipient-specific code format as explained for claim 19).
Claim 21
Aronson teaches the method according to claim 16, and further teaches using mapped laboratory result segments, including the first mapped laboratory result segment and the one or more additional mapped laboratory result segments, during clinical treatment of one or more patients and/or assessment of one or more aspects of clinical trial design or performance (Aronson abstract, [0114], noting data in the database (which can include the multiple received and mapped messages with respective segments per [0108]-[0110]) may be used “for research or patient care purposes,” e.g. as a basis of new drug targets, new molecular diagnostic tests focused on improving patient care, finding correlations among data groups or clusters. Such purposes are considered equivalent to use “during clinical treatment of a patient” because drugs or diagnostic tests are identified, as well as use “during assessment of one or more aspects of clinical trial design or performance” because research decisions like selecting new drug targets and analyzing patient groups or clusters are contemplated).
Claim 22
Aronson teaches the method according to claim 21, and further teaches wherein using the mapped laboratory result segments during clinical treatment of one or more patients comprises diagnosing one or more patients with a disease, suggesting a treatment for one or more patients, and/or calculating a dosage of a medication based on the mapped laboratory result segments (Aronson abstract, [0114], noting data in the database (which can include the received and mapped messages per [0108]-[0110]) may be used “for research or patient care purposes,” e.g. as a basis of new drug targets or new molecular diagnostic tests focused on improving patient care, which are considered equivalent to suggesting a treatment (e.g. a new drug) for a patient).
Claim 23
Aronson teaches the method according to claim 21, and further teaches wherein using the mapped laboratory result segments during assessment of one or more aspects of clinical trial design or performance comprises determining whether a patient falls within a cohort and/or evaluating one or more effects of a medical treatment on a patient enrolled in a clinical trial based on the mapped laboratory result segments (Aronson abstract, [0114], noting data in the database (which can include the received and mapped messages per [0108]-[0110]) may be used “for research or patient care purposes,” e.g. as a basis of finding correlations among data groups or clusters, considered equivalent to determining whether a patient falls within a cohort because the system is discovering groups or clusters in the data (e.g. cohorts) for research purposes).
Claim 30
Aronson teaches at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform a method according to claim 16 (Aronson [0119], noting a medical laboratory report message gateway is implemented with a processor executing instructions stored in memory; see claim 16 for mappings of functions).
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aronson as applied to claims 1 or 8 above, and further in view of HL7 Terminology (Reference V on the PTO-892 mailed 11/14/2025).
Claim 5
Aronson teaches the method according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein identifying the particular identifier associated with the laboratory result segment comprises searching one or more field values of the laboratory result segment (Aronson [0082]-[0083], noting the system detects lab codes used in an OBX field of an incoming HL7 message; see also [0049], noting that the system accepts messages sent by a client in any format preferred by the client, and that translation of the messages (e.g. to a common coding scheme like LOINC as in [0087]) is only performed “if necessary.” Taken together, these disclosures indicate that some incoming messages may already be in the common LOINC format if that is what the source prefers, in which case the parsing and code identification operations (e.g. as in [0082]-[0083]) would search OBX fields to identify LOINC codes).
Though Aronson discloses parsing a message (which can include an HL7 version 2 message per [0063]) for codes in any source-preferred format (e.g. including LOINC, as contemplated by [0049] & [0087]), it fails to explicitly disclose searching for an occurrence of “LN,” “LOINC,” or “LNC” character strings as required by the instant claim. However, HL7 Terminology teaches that table 0396 of the HL7 v2.4 standard defines the “LN” character string in an HL7 message as LOINC (HL7 Terminology, Pg 10). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lab-preferred code parsing and identification methods of Aronson to include searching for the “LN” character string in order to identify when an HL7 message is using LOINC as its preferred code system (as suggested by HL7 Terminology, Pg 10) such that the extracted code identifiers are specifically LOINC codes.
Claim 9
Aronson teaches the method according to claim 8, and further teaches wherein identifying the source-specific laboratory result identifier comprises searching one or more field values of the laboratory result segment for an occurrence of " (Aronson [0064], [0083], noting the system detects a caret (^) or pipe (|) symbol in an incoming HL7 message to delineate separate segment fields and identifies associated source-specific laboratory codes in the message).
Though Aronson discloses parsing a message (which can include an HL7 version 2 message per [0063]) for caret or pipe symbols to detect source-specific laboratory codes, it fails to explicitly disclose searching for a caret or pipe symbol that is preceded by an “L” character as required by the instant claim. However, HL7 Terminology teaches that table 0396 of the HL7 v2.4 standard defines the “L” character in an HL7 message as a “local general code for a site-defined code system used for a specific set of trading partners” (HL7 Terminology, Pg 9). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the caret- or pipe-based local lab-specific code parsing and identification methods of Aronson to include searching for “L^” or “L|” character strings in order to identify when an HL7 message indicates that a site-defined code system is being used by storing an “L” character in a certain field (as suggested by HL7 Terminology, Pg 9) that is separated from another field by a caret or pipe character (as suggested by Aronson [0064]).
Claims 6-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aronson and HL7 Terminology as applied to claims 5 or 9 above, and further in view of Caristix (Reference U on the PTO-892 mailed 11/14/2025).
Claim 6
Aronson in view of HL7 Terminology teaches the method according to claim 5, and the combination further teaches wherein searching the one or more field values of the laboratory result segment comprises searching field values of an OBX-3.3 sub-field and/or an OBX-3.6 subfield for an occurrence of "LN,""LOINC," and/or "LNC" (Aronson [0082]-[0083], noting the system identifies source-preferred laboratory codes in the message, e.g. in OBX fields; such preferred codes may encompass LOINC codes as explained for claim 5 above. See also HL7 Terminology Pg 10, noting the “LN” character string in an HL7 message indicates LOINC codes. Taken together, these disclosures indicate that the system can search through OBX fields for instances of “LN” to determine that the preferred coding system of the source is LOINC).
Though the present combination teaches searching OBX fields of an HL7 version 2 message for instances of “LN” denoting that the message is utilizing LOINC as a preferred code system, it fails to explicitly disclose searching the OBX-3.3 and/or OBX-3.6 subfields for these strings. However, Caristix teaches that HL7 v2.4 messages include subfields OBX.3.3 and OBX.3.6 that define the name of the coding system or name of alternate coding system (respectively) via the codes listed in table 0396 (which is fully detailed in HL7 Terminology) (Caristix Pg 2). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the OBX field searching for an “LN” character string as in the combination to specifically include searches of the OBX-3.3 and/or OBX-3.6 subfields because these specific subfields are the ones that would contain the name of the coding system used by the message (as suggested by Caristix Pg 2).
Claim 7
Aronson in view of HL7 Terminology teaches the method according to claim 5, and the combination further teaches wherein identifying the associated LOINC code comprises identifying a field value of an OBX- (Aronson [0082]-[0083], noting the system detects source-preferred lab codes in an OBX field of an incoming HL7 message; such preferred codes may encompass LOINC codes as explained for claim 5 above).
Though the present combination teaches searching OBX fields of an HL7 version 2 message for lab codes, it fails to explicitly disclose searching the OBX-3.1 and/or OBX-3.4 subfields for these codes. However, Caristix teaches that HL7 v2.4 messages include subfields OBX.3.1 and OBX.3.4 that define the actual identifier of the result (Caristix Pg 2). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the OBX field searching for lab codes as in the combination to specifically include searches of the OBX-3.1 and/or OBX-3.4 subfields because these specific subfields are the ones that would contain the codes themselves (as suggested by Caristix Pg 2).
Claim 10
Aronson in view of HL7 Terminology teaches the method according to claim 9, and the combination further teaches wherein searching the one or more field values of the laboratory result segment comprises searching field values of an OBX-(Aronson [0063]-[0064], [0082]-[0083], noting the system detects a caret (^) or pipe (|) symbol in an incoming HL7 version 2 message to delineate separate segment fields and identifies associated source-specific laboratory codes in the message. e.g. in OBX fields; see also HL7 Terminology Pg 9, noting the “L” character in an HL7 message indicates “local general code for a site-defined code system used for a specific set of trading partners.” Taken together, these disclosures indicate that the system can search through OBX fields for instances of “L^” or “L|”).
Though the present combination teaches searching OBX fields of an HL7 version 2 message for instances of “L^” or “L|” denoting that the message is utilizing a local site-specific code system, it fails to explicitly disclose searching the OBX-3.3 and/or OBX-3.6 subfields for these strings. However, Caristix teaches that HL7 v2.4 messages include subfields OBX.3.3 and OBX.3.6 that define the name of the coding system or name of alternate coding system (respectively) via the codes listed in table 0396 (which is fully detailed in HL7 Terminology) (Caristix Pg 2). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the OBX field searching for “L^” or “L|” character strings as in the combination to specifically include searches of the OBX-3.3 and/or OBX-3.6 subfields because these specific subfields are the ones that would contain the name of the coding system used by the message (as suggested by Caristix Pg 2).
Claim 11
Aronson in view of HL7 Terminology teaches the method according to claim 9, and the combination further teaches wherein identifying the associated source-specific laboratory result identifier comprises identifying a field value of an OBXspecific laboratory result identifier (Aronson [0082]-[0083], noting the system detects source-specific lab codes in an OBX field of an incoming HL7 message).
Though the present combination teaches searching OBX fields of an HL7 version 2 message for source-specific code identifiers, it fails to explicitly disclose searching the OBX-3.1 and/or OBX-3.4 subfields for these code identifiers. However, Caristix teaches that HL7 v2.4 messages include subfields OBX.3.1 and OBX.3.4 that define the actual identifier of the result (Caristix Pg 2). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the OBX field searching for source-specific code identifiers as in the combination to specifically include searches of the OBX-3.1 and/or OBX-3.4 subfields because these specific subfields are the ones that would contain the code identifiers (as suggested by Caristix Pg 2).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aronson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lau et al. (US 20020198739 A1).
Claim 32
Aronson teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose mapping a first laboratory result segment of the plurality of laboratory result segments to a first identifier from the set of standard laboratory result identifiers by: determining that there is no identifier associated with the first laboratory result segment in a first electronic message from which the first laboratory result segment was obtained; in response to determining that there is no identifier associated with the first laboratory result segment in the first electronic message, generating a mapping between one or more field values of the first laboratory result segment and the first identifier.
However, Lau teaches that if a message includes concepts that do not match any existing mapping data (e.g. as stored in a synonym table or healthcare data dictionary), a new entry in the dictionary is created to represent a new mapping between the unmapped concept and a standard vocabulary like LOINC (Lau [0053]-[0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mapping/translation step of Aronson to include the ability to generate a new mapping in the dictionary if no existing matches for field values in an incoming message are found as in Lau in order to allow the dictionary to be continuously updated, thereby continually improving the effectiveness of the automatic laboratory matching/mapping process (as suggested by Lau [0056]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jamieson (US 7610192 B1), Farooq et al. (US 20190266243 A1), and Bess et al. (US 20200066392 A1) describe methods for generating new translation mappings to standard code schemas as needed for new institution-specific formats.
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 KAREN A HRANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-1679. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 ET.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/KAREN A HRANEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights