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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19 May 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
In the reply filed 19 May 2026 the following changes have been made: amendments to claims 1 and 9.
Claims 1, 3-8, 9, 11-16, 17, and 19-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites the following:
“a matching rules engine …….. authoring … testing…building…hot deployment…”
Claim 3 recites the following:
“a matching rules engine …….. compares…”
Claim 4 recites the following:
“a matching rules engine …….. authoring …hot deployment…”
Claim 9 recites the following:
“a neural network-based person matching engine …….. to identify … to determine…obtain…merge or splitting…”
“a matching rules engine …….. authoring … testing …building…hot deployment…”
“the person matching engine …….. to flag…”
Claim 11 recites the following:
“person matching engine ….. to determine….”
Claim 12 recites the following:
“person matching engine ….. for independent authoring and hot deployment….”
Claim 13 recites the following:
“person matching engine ….. to test”
Claim 14 recites the following:
“person matching engine ….. to determine”
Claim 15 recites the following:
“a person matching engine ….. to merge”
Claim 16 recites the following:
“person matching engine ….. to split”
Claim 17 recites the following:
“a matching rules engine …….. authoring … testing…building…hot deployment…”
Claim 22 recites the following:
“person matching engine …….. to determine…”
which are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ),
sixth paragraph. The limitations create a rebuttable presumption that the claim elements are to be treated under § 112(f) based on the use of the word “means” or generic place holder (underlined) with functional language (in italics). The presumption is not rebutted because the limitations do not recite sufficient structure in the claim to perform the functions. When § 112(f) is invoked the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations is restricted to the structure in the disclosure and its equivalents.
The following claim limitations –
Of claim 9:
“a neural-network-based person matching engine …….. obtain…”
recite non-specialized computer functions that can be accomplished by any general purpose computer (e.g., any general purpose computer can receive, convert, and/or display data, etc.), and as such an algorithm is not required to be described in the specification to support an adequate disclosure of the limitations.
However, the following functional claim limitations:
Of claim 1 recites the following:
“a matching rules engine …….. authoring … testing…building…hot deployment…”
Of claim 3 recites the following:
“a matching rules engine …….. compares…”
Of claim 4 recites the following:
“a matching rules engine …….. authoring …hot deployment…”
Of claim 9:
“a neural-network-based person matching engine …….. to identify … to determine…merge or splitting…”
Of claim 11:
“person matching engine ….. to determine….”
Of claim 12:
“person matching engine ….. to author….”
Of claim 13:
“person matching engine ….. to test”
Of claim 14:
“person matching engine ….. to determine”
Of claim 15:
“person matching engine ….. to merge”
Of claim 16:
“person matching engine ….. to split”
Of claim 17 recites the following:
“a matching rules engine …….. authoring … testing…building…hot deployment…”
Of claim 22 recites the following:
“person matching engine …….. to determine…”
recite specialized computer functions. A function performed by a programmed
computer requires both the computer and the algorithm that causes the computer to
perform the function. As such, a disclosure of an algorithm to perform these functions and to transform a general-purpose computer into a programmed computer is required. Examiner notes that the applicant has clarified the record in the present arguments to show that the specification provides sufficient support in [0074]-[0101], [0115]-[0118], and Figures 4 to 8 for the specific algorithm and corresponding structure for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation of the function of the matching rules engine, a neural-network-based person matching engine, and person matching engine. If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of
Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim 9 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended claims 9 now specifies that one or more data sync processors matching the new or updated record of medical records using a system of record (SOR) database to identify one or more suspect records. Examiner is confused by this recitation since the specification [0137] seems to suggest that the data sync processor identifies potential candidates while the person marching engine performs the actual matching determination. It can be seen that claim 9 itself later has the recitation of the person matching engine performing the actual matching determination. MPEP 2161.01 notes, “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.” Accordingly, a rejection for lack of written description is necessary. Dependent claims 11-16 and 22 inherit the deficiency of claim 9 and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 21 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 21 contains the recitation “applying, by the matching rule engine, a machine learning model that is used by the neural network […].” Applicant’s recitation of applying, by the matching rule engine, a machine learning model that is used by the neural network appears to constitute new matter. It seems like applicant is trying to claim a sub-model; if not, then examiner points out this limitation doesn’t make sense as it confuses machine learning terminology (i.e., subset hierarchy) as also confirmed with multiple subject matter experts at the USPTO. MPEP 2163 notes, “The proscription against the introduction of new matter in a patent application (35 U.S.C. 132 and 251) serves to prevent an applicant from adding information that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981); see also MPEP §§ 2163.06 through 2163.07 for a more detailed discussion of the written description requirement and its relationship to new matter.” Accordingly, a rejection for addition of new matter is necessary.
Claim 21 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. New claim 21 now specifies periodically retraining the machine learning model using feedback from manual corrections to overmatched or undermatched records. Examiner cannot find disclosure of periodically retraining in the specification. The closest paragraph that discloses retraining [0129] does not disclose updating the model periodically or on a fixed schedule (e.g., daily, monthly). MPEP 2161.01 notes, “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.” Accordingly, a rejection for lack of written description is necessary.
Claim 22 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 22 contains the recitation “wherein the person matching engine is configured to apply a machine model that is used by the person matching engine […].” Claim 22 inherits the “neural network-based person matching engine” from claim 9 and so applicant’s recitation of wherein the person matching engine is configured to apply a machine model that is used by the person matching engine appears to constitute new matter. It seems like applicant is trying to claim a sub-model; if not, then examiner points out this limitation doesn’t make sense as it confuses machine learning terminology (i.e., subset hierarchy) as also confirmed by multiple subject matter experts at the USPTO. MPEP 2163 notes, “The proscription against the introduction of new matter in a patent application (35 U.S.C. 132 and 251) serves to prevent an applicant from adding information that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981); see also MPEP §§ 2163.06 through 2163.07 for a more detailed discussion of the written description requirement and its relationship to new matter.” Accordingly, a rejection for addition of new matter is necessary.
Claim 22 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. New claim 22 now specifies periodically retrain the machine learning model using feedback from manual corrections to overmatched or undermatched records. Examiner cannot find disclosure of periodically retraining in the specification. The closest paragraph that discloses retraining [0129] does not disclose updating the model periodically or on a fixed schedule (e.g., daily, monthly). MPEP 2161.01 notes, “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.” Accordingly, a rejection for lack of written description is necessary.
Claim 23 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 23 contains the recitation “applying, by the neural network, a machine learning model […].” Applicant’s recitation of applying, by the neural network, a machine learning model appears to constitute new matter. It seems like applicant is trying to claim a sub-model; if not, then examiner points out this limitation doesn’t make sense as it confuses machine learning terminology (i.e., subset hierarchy) as also confirmed by multiple subject matter experts at the USPTO. MPEP 2163 notes, “The proscription against the introduction of new matter in a patent application (35 U.S.C. 132 and 251) serves to prevent an applicant from adding information that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981); see also MPEP §§ 2163.06 through 2163.07 for a more detailed discussion of the written description requirement and its relationship to new matter.” Accordingly, a rejection for addition of new matter is necessary.
Claim 23 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. New claim 23 now specifies periodically retraining the machine learning model using feedback from manual corrections to overmatched or undermatched records. Examiner cannot find disclosure of periodically retraining in the specification. The closest paragraph that discloses retraining [0129] does not disclose updating the model periodically or on a fixed schedule (e.g., daily, monthly). MPEP 2161.01 notes, “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.” Accordingly, a rejection for lack of written description is necessary.
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, 3-8, 9, 11-16, 17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1, 3-8, 17, 19-21, and 23) and machine (claims 9, 11-16, and 22).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites steps of
monitoring, by an event-streaming application operating in real time within a
distributed computing system, a stream of messages in the communication network from plural different sources of medical records to identify a new or updated record of the medical records;
identifying one or more suspect records using a data sync processor, separate from the event-streaming application, from a system of record (SOR) database, the one or more suspect records identified as being potential matches to the new or updated record that is identified;
determining, using a neural network, that the one or more suspect records match the new or updated record by applying matching rules managed by a matching rule engine that is configured for independent authoring, testing, building, and hot deployment of new or modified matching rules at runtime without interrupting ongoing processing of the event streaming application such that new or modified rules are deployed and consumed while existing ones of the matching rules continue to be used for live traffic of the stream of messages, the neural network outputting a probability or indication of a match between the new or updated record and each of the one or more suspect records that is compared with a threshold to determine that the one or more suspect records match the new or updated record;
obtaining a person entity profile related to the new or updated record from a person entity database; and
merging the new or updated record with the one or more suspect records or splitting the new or updated record from the one or more suspect records based on the person entity profile that is obtained, wherein the new or updated record that is merged with the one or more suspect records is flagged as inactive, merged, split, or not-for-production in the person entity database for auditing or historical purposes.
Claim 9 recites steps of
an event-streaming application operating in real time within a distributed computing system having a stream of messages from plural different sources of medical records to identify a new or updated record of the medical records;
one or more data sync processors matching the new or updated record of medical records using a system of record (SOR) database to identify one or more suspect records;
and a person matching engine separate from the data sync processors and also configured to determine that the one or more suspect records match the new or updated record by applying matching rules managed by a matching rule engine that is configured for independent authoring, testing, building, and hot deployment of new or modified matching rules at runtime without interrupting ongoing processing of the event-streaming application, such that new or modified rules are deployed and consumed while existing ones of the matching rules continue to be used for live traffic of the stream of messages, the person matching engine also configured to, obtain a person entity profile related to the new or updated record from a person entity database, and merge the new or updated record with the one or more suspect records or splitting the new or updated record from the one or more suspect records based on the person entity profile that is obtained,
wherein the person matching engine is configured to flag the new or updated record that is merged with the one or more suspect records as inactive, merged, split, or not-for-production in the database for auditing or historical purposes.
Claim 17 recites steps of
monitoring, in real time by an event-streaming application deployed across a plurality of worker nodes in a distributed computing system a stream of messages from plural different sources of medical records to identify a new or updated record of the medical records;
identifying one or more suspect records from a system of record (SOR) database, the one or more suspect records identified as being potential matches to the new or updated record that is identified;
determining, using a neural network, that the one or more suspect records match the new or updated record by applying matching rules managed by a matching rule engine that is configured for independent authoring, testing, building, and deployment of new or modified matching rules at runtime without interrupting ongoing processing of the event streaming application such that new or modified rules are deployed and consumed while existing ones of the matching rules continue to be used for live traffic of the stream of messages, the neural network outputting a probability or indication of a match between the new or updated record and each of the one or more suspect records that is compared with a threshold to determine that the one or more suspect records match the new or updated record;
obtaining a person entity profile related to the new or updated record from a person entity database, the person entity profile including source identifiers uniquely identifying which of the sources generated the medical records associated with each of several different persons; and
one or more of (a) merging the new or updated record with the one or more suspect records or (b) splitting the new or updated record from the one or more suspect records,
wherein the new or updated record that is merged with the one or more suspect records are flagged as inactive, merged, split, or not-for-production in the person entity database for auditing or historical purposes,
wherein merging the new or updated record with the one or more suspect records occurs responsive to the source identifiers in the new or updated record and the one or more suspect records being associated with two or more of the different persons in the person entity database, and
wherein splitting the new or updated record from the one or more suspect records occurs responsive to the source identifiers in the new or updated record and the one or more suspect records being associated with a single person of the different persons in the person entity database along with one or more other source identifiers,
wherein the new or updated record that is merged with the one or more suspect records are flagged as inactive, merged, split, or not-for-production in the person entity database for auditing or historical purposes.
These steps for matching patient records, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the italicized portions from managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people by organizing the activity around monitoring, identifying, determining, merging and/or splitting, and flagging a set of patient records. This could be analogized to manual file keeping operations, a task historically performed by humans (e.g., medical clerks). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements non-italicized portions identified above for claims 1, 9, and 17, 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 [Claim 1] by an event-streaming application operating in real time within a distributed computing system; in the communication network; using a data sync processor, separate from the event-streaming application; using a neural network; by a matching rule engine that is configured for independent authoring, testing, building, and hot deployment of new or modified matching rules at runtime without interrupting ongoing processing of the event streaming application. [Claim 9] by an event-streaming application operating in real time within a distributed computing system; one or more data sync processors; a person matching engine separate from the data sync processors; by a matching rule engine that is configured for independent authoring, testing, building, and hot deployment of new or modified matching rules at runtime without interrupting ongoing processing of the event-streaming application; and, a person matching engine. [Claim 17] by an event-streaming application deployed across a plurality of worker nodes in a distributed computing system; using a neural network; and, by a matching rule engine that is configured for independent authoring, testing, building, and deployment of new or modified matching rules at runtime without interrupting ongoing processing of the event streaming application amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Each of the above additional elements therefore only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computer components or other machines within their ordinary capacity. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the above claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) 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. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception in particular fields such as recitation of [Claim 1] by an event-streaming application operating in real time within a distributed computing system; in the communication network; using a data sync processor, separate from the event-streaming application; by a matching rule engine that is configured for independent authoring, testing, building, and hot deployment of new or modified matching rules at runtime without interrupting ongoing processing of the event streaming application. [Claim 9] by an event-streaming application operating in real time within a distributed computing system; one or more data sync processors; a person matching engine separate from the data sync processors; by a matching rule engine that is configured for independent authoring, testing, building, and hot deployment of new or modified matching rules at runtime without interrupting ongoing processing of the event-streaming application; and, a person matching engine. [Claim 17] by an event-streaming application deployed across a plurality of worker nodes in a distributed computing system; and, by a matching rule engine that is configured for independent authoring, testing, building, and deployment of new or modified matching rules at runtime without interrupting ongoing processing of the event streaming application, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f).
[Claim 1] using a neural network; and, [Claim 17] using a neural network, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank., MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 generic computer implementation.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 3-8, 11-16, and 19-23 reciting particular aspects for matching patient records such as
[Claims 3] wherein the one or more suspect records are determined to match the new or updated record by the matching rule engine, which compares information contained within the one or more suspect records and the new or updated record using matching rules;
[Claim 4] authoring one or more new rules or one or more changes to the matching rules using the matching rule engine configured for independent authoring and hot deployment off-line while the matching rules without the one or more new rules or the one or more changes continue to be used to determine whether the one or more suspect records match the new or updated record;
[Claim 5] testing the one or more new rules or the one or more changes to the matching rules off-line using the medical records without merging the new or updated record with the one or more suspect records and without splitting the new or updated record from the one or more suspect records;
[Claims 6 & 14] wherein the one or more suspect records include plural suspect records, and further comprising:
determining that two or more of the suspect records match each other using the event streaming application and matching rule engine in the distributed computing system; and
merging the two or more of the suspect records with each other by combining information from the suspect records into a single profile in the person entity database;
[Claims 7 & 15] wherein the medical records include source identifiers uniquely identifying which of the sources generated the medical records and the person entity database stores the source identifiers associated with each of several different persons,
wherein merging the new or updated record with the one or more suspect records occurs responsive to the source identifiers in the new or updated record and the one or more suspect records being associated with two or more of the different persons in the person entity database;
[Claims 8 & 16] wherein the medical records include source identifiers uniquely identifying which of the sources generated the medical records and the person entity database stores the source identifiers associated with each of several different persons,
wherein splitting the new or updated record from the one or more suspect records occurs responsive to the source identifiers in the new or updated record and the one or more suspect records being associated with a single person of the different persons in the person entity database along with one or more other source identifiers;
[Claim 11] wherein the one or more suspect records are determined to match the new or updated record by the event-streaming application executing across the distributed computing system, which compares information contained within the one or more suspect records and the new or updated record using matching rules applied in real time;
[Claim 12] wherein the person matching engine is configured for independent authoring and hot deployment of one or more new rules or one or more changes to the matching rules off-line while the matching rules without the one or more new rules or the one or more changes continue to be used to determine whether the one or more suspect records match the new or updated record in live traffic processed by the event-streaming application;
[Claim 13] wherein the person matching engine is configured to test the one or more new rules or the one or more changes to the matching rules off-line using the medical records in a test environment of the distributed computing system without merging the new or updated record with the one or more suspect records and without splitting the new or updated record from the one or more suspect records in the person entity database;
[Claim 19] wherein the one or more suspect records are determined to match the new or updated record by the event-streaming application executing across the distributed computing system by comparing information contained within the one or more suspect records and the new or updated record using matching rules applied in real time, and further comprising:
authoring one or more new rules or one or more changes to the matching rules using a matching rule engine configured for independent authoring and hot deployment off-line while the matching rules without the one or more new rules or the one or more changes continue to be used to determine whether the one or more suspect records match the new or updated record in live traffic processed by the event-streaming application;
[Claim 20] testing the one or more new rules or the one or more changes to the matching rules off-line using the medical records in a test environment of the distributed computing system without merging the new or updated record with the one or more suspect records and without splitting the new or updated record from the one or more suspect records in the person entity database;
[Claim 21] applying, by the matching rule engine, a machine learning model that is used by the neural network to determine that the one or more suspect records match the new or updated record and that is trained using historical patient record data to improve the accuracy of matching rules; and periodically retraining the machine learning model using feedback from manual corrections to overmatched or undermatched records;
[Claim 22] wherein the person matching engine is configured to apply a machine model that is used by the person matching engine to determine that the one or more suspect records match the new or updated record and that is trained using historical patient record data to improve the accuracy of matching rules, the person matching engine configured to periodically retrain the machine learning model using feedback from manual corrections to overmatched or undermatched records;
[Claim 23] applying, by the neural network, a machine learning model to determine that the one or more suspect records match the new or updated record and that is trained using historical patient record data to improve the accuracy of matching rules; and periodically retraining the machine learning model using feedback from manual corrections to overmatched or undermatched records;
these italicized portions are methods of organizing human activity since they merely describe types of data and determinations that can be performed by humans.
Step 2A Prong 2
Dependent claims 3-4, 6, 11-14, and 19-23 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (the additional limitations in claim 3 (by the matching rule engine); claim 4 (using the matching rule engine configured for independent authoring and hot deployment); claim 6 & 14 (using the event streaming application and matching rule engine in the distributed computing system); claims 11 (by the event-streaming application executing across the distributed computing system); claim 12 (wherein the person matching engine is configured for independent authoring and hot deployment; and, by the event-streaming application); claim 13 (the person matching engine is configured; and, the distributed computing system); claim 19 (by the event-streaming application executing across the distributed computing system; using a matching rule engine configured for independent authoring and hot deployment; and, by the event-streaming application); claim 20 (the distributed computing system); claim 21 (applying, by the matching rule engine, a machine learning model that is used by the neural network; and, periodically retraining the machine learning model); claim 22 (the person matching engine is configured to apply a machine model that is used by the person matching engine; and, the person matching engine configured to periodically retrain the machine learning model); and, claim 23 (applying, by the neural network, a machine learning model; and, periodically retraining the machine learning model) amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Dependent claims 3-4, 6, 11-14, and 19-20 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, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f). Dependent claims 21-23 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, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank., MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, see [0112] which provides examples of off-the-shelf processors and memory. There is no indication that these additional elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Therefore, in consideration of all the facts, the present invention is still not a patent-eligible invention under USC 101. Additionally, it is evident that the present claims monopolize using algorithms to match and merge medical records, restricting further innovation in this area without offering a specific, technical improvement to how the computer actually operates; “monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (quoting Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)).
No Prior Art Rejection
While references of record are understood to be the closest prior art. For claims 1, 9, and 17, while the combination of Donohue et al. (US20210312478A1) in view of Sragow (US20110142217A1), Hajare (US20130275369A1), and further in view of Kumar et al. (Building Data Streaming Applications with Apache Kafka) teaches most of the limitations of the claim, the scope of the claims describe a particular manner in which a matching rule engine that is configured for independent […] testing […] of new or modified matching rules at runtime without interrupting ongoing processing of the event streaming application such that new or modified rules. This goes beyond any teachings or suggestions in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 13 April 2026 & 19 May 2026 have been considered but are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the USC 112 interpretation, applicant asserts that the claims recite structural elements that define a computer architecture.
Examiner disagrees and points out that the limitations in the 112(f) are not modified by sufficient structure; even applicant’s specification supports the examiner’s interpretation. Therefore, the USC 112(f) is maintained.
Regarding the USC 112(a) rejection, applicant asserts that claim 9 has been amended to clarify the language and requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection.
Examiner disagrees and asserts that amended claim 9 has resulted in a new 112(a) issue. Claims 21-23 also still have a 112(a) rejection. Therefore, the USC 112(a) rejection has been maintained.
Regarding the USC 112(b) rejection, applicant has amended claim 9 to cure the 112(b) issue. Therefore, the USC 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the USC 101 rejection, in the arguments filed on 13 April 2026 applicant argues that claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to statutory subject matter, specifically a unique architecture. Applicant explains the processing involved in Figure 4, specifically asserting that the data sync processors being separate from the event streaming application is an improvement because it allows for continuous streaming, and allows for the operation of the stream of records to work with data sync processors and a person entity update processor. Applicant explains that the architecture provides an improvement to the functioning of distributed computer systems which is a long-recognized problem in health-care data management. That the mechanisms in claim 1 solve three intertwined problems (i.e., eliminating batch latency, allowing hot deployment, and guaranteeing data lineage) and are not organizing human activity and not performed by a clerical staff in a hospital or clinic. Instead, an improvement in operation of computing functionality by providing continuous, horizontally scalable ingestion of billions of health-care messages, and can use Kafka or Spark CEP pipeline. Applicant asserts that the claims apply patient-entity-resolution rules in a specific event-streaming context that continually updates a multi-tenant person-entity database which is more than “apply it on a computer.” Applicant states that the USC 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s unpersuasive arguments on the asserted statutory architecture. There is a serious disconnect between what the applicant is arguing and what is actually claimed (as confirmed by multiple subject matter experts at the USPTO). First, examiner points out claim 1 does not recite all of the components of the asserted architecture; there is no recitation anywhere of a person entity update processor. Second, there is zero quantitative indication in the claims that even suggest performing high-volume, real-time patient-record resolution. The applicant lists various components from Figure 4; however, claim 1 merely recites these components functionally. The claim does not disclose (nor can the applicant argue) a new processor design or even a new network communication protocol. All this invention is doing is taking standard, off-the-shelf engineering concepts and directs them to process application-level data. Simply taking a known abstract task (i.e., record matching) and splitting its workflow execution across generic computer components does not change the abstract nature of the claim. Applicant asserts that the tasks in claim 1 are not organizing human activity and are not performed by a clerical staff in a hospital or clinic, but examiner disputes this and asserts that the analogy (under BRI) correctly identifies the logic and organizational steps that are identical to manual methods. For example, a team of clerks divide the labor: Clerk A continuously monitors an incoming fax machine, Clerk B cross-references a master paper filing cabinet, and Clerk C updates a card catalog with a red marker indicating a record is split. This division of labor mirrors every step of claim 1 (as confirmed by multiple subject matter experts at the USPTO). And so, rearranging the layout of generic computer components that the applicant did not invent does not constitute a technological improvement to the computer itself. It is clearly a mere automation of an administrative human workflow. It is also clearly evident from the applicant’s explanation of the invention that they believe attempting to take highly complex and off-the-shelf distributed tooling (like Kafka or Spark CEP) deploying it to solve a messy healthcare data issue, they’ve somehow engineered a “novel architecture.” All the applicant is doing is applying known technology for their intended benefit(s) to a new data environment and calling it an improvement (see Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., Case No.18-2239 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020); the underlying problem outlined in the specification is not a flaw in computer networks, memory allocation, or server architecture, but rather demographic volatility and typographical errors; problems that existed long before computers were even invented. Applicant’s specification [0131] literally admits examination of medical records can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. On page 12 of the arguments the applicant attempts to retroactively recharacterize the invention by inventing imaginary technical problems that the specification itself never actually set out to solve. The specification rather only acknowledges event streaming is fast, that “hot deployment” is just a functional outcome, and that merging/splitting records with a flag is just a routine data-labeling step. Applying rules in an event-streaming context that continually updates a database does not make this a patent eligible invention. Human medical record clerks have looked at conflicting files, applied rules (e.g., date of birth matches and last name is hyphenated), and updated a master index for over a century. The claims are absolutely not integrated into a practical application and the USC 101 will not be withdrawn.
In the arguments filed on 19 May 2026 applicant argues that the interpretations by the office are clear error and overgeneralizes the claims, fails to evaluate the claims as a whole, and disregards the features of the claims. On pages 2 to 3 the applicant argues that under Step 2A Prong 1 the office action’s abstraction of the claims is precisely the kind of untethered description the USPTO has instructed examiners to avoid in view of Enfish. Applicant asserts that claim 1 has technical limitations that focus on a computer-centric, real-time, distributed event-streaming pipeline, as confirmed by the specification. That the limitations define
how a distributed computer system operates on real-time message streams and maintains availability during rule evolution. Applicant also disagrees with the “manual clerk” analogy because even under BRI, the claim requires real-time event stream monitoring across distributed computing, hot deployment without interrupting live processing, and neural-network probabilistic inference; not practically performed by humans. And that the specification emphasizes real-time/near-real-time processing instead of batch processing and distributed scalability by adding worker nodes, features inherently tied to computer operation. Applicant asserts that the claims are eligible under Step 2A Prong 1.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments and asserts that the claims still recite organizing human activity as it involves managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people; specifically, fundamental, non-technical administrative tasks such as updating records, managing personal information, and maintaining data silos which have historically been performed by clerical/medical staff. There is no clear error in the examiner’s analysis as confirmed by multiple subject matter experts at the USPTO. What is clear is that the applicant attempts to stretch the claim limitations to argue that the claims are not abstract. Examiner points to the USPTO October 2019 Guidance (also incorporated in MPEP 2106) which states that claims can recite an abstract idea even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The USPTO October 2019 Guidance is clear in that the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite an abstract idea even though the limitations may not be entirely performed by humans. The concept of sorting/searching & filtering queries is conceptually analogous to tasks performed by a clerical staff member at a hospital or clinic. The computers in the claims are not used in a specific, inventive way. The claims are very outcome-focused and do not detail how each of the outcomes are reached. As explained above, the asserted distributed computer system operates on the logic and organizational steps that are identical to manual methods. For example, a team of clerks divide the labor: Clerk A continuously monitors an incoming fax machine, Clerk B cross-references a master paper filing cabinet, and Clerk C updates a card catalog with a red marker indicating a record is split. This division of labor mirrors every step of claim 1. The present neural network claimed is a black box model with no clarity on the actual computer processing or how the computer is programmed to achieve the results in a non-abstract way different from how humans analyze/process data. Applicant’s arguments operate under the assumption that the features such as real-time streaming are inherently tied to computer operations, but examiner counters this flawed assumption based on the fact that the recitation of real-time is relative in the claims and neither the specification nor the claims define or put any sort of constraints on time for processing. Since the applicant’s claim construction places no time constraints for their invention to process the data, a human could take as long as they want or as many seconds, minutes, hours, etc. needed to perform the claimed invention. There is also serious disconnect between what the applicant is arguing and what is actually claimed in the sense that nowhere in at least claims 1 & 9 is there any recitation of worker nodes. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that applicant’s invention is directed to judicial exception, as also confirmed by multiple subject matter experts at the USPTO. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to ‘implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer’, it cannot save OIP's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted).
On pages 3 to 4 the applicant argues that under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they improve system availability and continuous processing behavior in a live streaming pipeline and require merging/splitting records and persistently flagging records (inactive/merged/split/not-for-production) in the person entity database for auditing/historical purposes. Applicant also states that the specification describes real-time streaming, distributed scaling, continuous operation while deploying new rules, which further supports subject matter eligibility under 101. Applicant asserts that the claims are eligible under Step 2A Prong 2.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. Examiner confused by the applicant’s arguments since compared to the arguments filed on 04/13/26, where the applicant argued the hardware architecture, these arguments filed on 05/19/2026 focus on the software aspect of the invention. Examiner seeks to make the record clear that the sequence of filings by the applicant is clear evidence that applicant is struggling to pinpoint a definitive inventive concept and is shifting goal posts to see what sticks. Examiner asserts the present specification provides a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. There is no nexus between what is argued/in the specification and what is actually claimed. Additionally, there is zero quantitative indication in all the claims at ingesting a large amount of healthcare messages for stream processing. Examiner asserts it is also not clear how the invention provides an improvement. Specifically, examiner reasserts the following factual determinations which the applicant has been unable to dispute and counters the applicant’s arguments of practical application:
First, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that implementing a distributed, event-driven neural network for tasks that could be handled by high-performance deterministic indexing may introduce unnecessary architectural complexity and higher maintenance costs without a proportional increase in accuracy. The applicant’s specification does not explain/lacks detail on how architectural complexity and higher maintenance costs are managed that is necessary for an improvement to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, it is not evident from the specification how the amended claims improve the operation of computers.
Second, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that hot deploying matching rules in a distributed environment commonly fails due to consistency issues, network partitions, or improper state management. Specific failure modes include, but are not limited to, inconsistent rule application across nodes, partial updates where only a subset of nodes receive the new rules, rule conflicts during live updates, and increased latency or downtime during propagation. The applicant’s specification does not explain/lacks detail on how failure modes are managed that is necessary for an improvement to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, it is not evident from the specification how the amended claims improve the operation of computers.
Third, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that while event-streaming (like Kafka) is fast, invoking a neural network for every suspect record comparison can become a computational bottleneck. If the system identifies 100 suspect records for one update, the inference time multiplied across the applicant’s asserted “billions” of messages may negate the real-time benefits of the streaming architecture. The applicant’s specification does not explain/lacks detail on how computational bottlenecks are managed that is necessary for an improvement to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, it is not evident from the specification how the amended claims improve the operation of computers.
Fourth, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that flagging records as “not-for-production” or “inactive” within the same database used for live resolution can lead to database bloat and slower query performance over time. The applicant’s specification does not explain/lacks detail on how database bloat and slower query performance are managed that is necessary for an improvement to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, it is not evident from the specification how the amended claims improve the operation of databases themselves.
The MPEP provides that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field can signal eligibility, see MPEP 2106.05(a), and provides examples of improvements to computer functionality, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), and improvements to any other technology of technical field, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool”. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification' s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. Unlike Enfish, the instant claimed invention appears to improve upon a judicial exception rather than a problem in the software arts. Rather than improving a computer's algorithm (i.e., solving a technically based problem), the claimed invention purports to solve the non-technological problems of demographic volatility, typographical errors, overmatching and undermatching of patients ([0001] to [0004] of specification) by using computers to automate patient record matching. In other words, one of the main/glaring issues with the present invention is that the problem solved by the applicant is not a technological problem. All the applicant is doing is applying known technology for their intended benefit(s) to a new data environment and calling it an improvement (see Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., Case No.18-2239 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020).
The examiner asserts the following facts the applicant has been unable to dispute:
1) the invention does NOT involve a novel algorithm or data structure that significantly improves the computer's functionality,
2) the invention does NOT involve a new hardware component or configuration that works with the computer to achieve a specific technical benefit, and
3) the computer is NOT used in a completely new way demonstrating a significant technical advancement.
It is evident from the specification and claims that the applicant is not improving computer technology, and instead providing an improvement to the abstract idea by automation of human tasks. Applicant’s specification [0131] literally admits examination of medical records can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. An improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to computer technology. Thus, examiner does not see how the present claims improve the functioning of a computer or provide improvements to any other technology or technical field. The claimed invention appears similar to the example of improvements that are insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality such as arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)(viii). The broad claims are lacking concrete limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner points out that the claimed limitations have no indication in the specification that the operations recited invoke any inventive programming, require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (fed Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”). Most importantly, in DDR Holdings & unlike the present claims, the claims at issue specified how interactions with the Internet were manipulated to yield a desired result—a result that overrode the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink. 773 F.3d at 1258; 113 USPQ2d at 1106. The examiner also points out that there is no indication in the specification that the claimed invention affects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner points to the recitation of neural network in the claim(s) is generic. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208 223 (2014). Applicant does not and cannot contend they invented the concept of neural networks, nor does the specification disclose any new neural network technique. In fact, the applicant’s specification [0115] recognizes known neural networks in the art. The alleged improvement of using a neural network lies in the abstract idea itself, not to any technological improvement nor to any improvement to the functioning of a computer. See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The fact pattern of the applicant’s claims is congruent to the Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 2025 U.S.P.Q.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 2025) decision by the Federal Circuit. Just like in Recentive, the present claims do not delineate steps through which the neural network technology achieves an improvement. See, e.g., IBM v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding abstract a claim that "d[id] not sufficiently describe how to achieve [its stated] results in a non-abstract way," because "[s]uch functional claim language, without more, is insufficient for patentability under our law." (quoting Two-Way Media Ltd v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017))); see also Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (similar); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (similar). Claiming a mere concept or functional result without disclosing the implementation details does not overcome USC 101. Applying an established technique to a new field or data set is insufficient for patent eligibility. Examiner further points out that improving efficiency by reduction of latency (pg. 13 to 14 of the applicant’s arguments of record on 11/11/2025) is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality as set forth by the courts in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015); claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. This further supports the examiner’s assertion that the claims do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. To show an involvement of a computer assists in improving technology, the claims must recite details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems the courts found that the claims were “directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality…” (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The present invention clearly does not meet the condition set forth by the courts and thus is not integrated into a practical application.
On pages 4 to 5 the applicant argues that for Step 2B the ordered combination is not generic computers and recites significantly more. Applicant asserts that the specification expressly frames the system as improving technical operation (real-time, scalable ingestion; continuous processing while rules are updated; auditable merge/split lineage). Applicant requests withdrawal of the USC 101 rejection and states that the dependent claims are eligible as well.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. Examiner points out that the “apply it” analysis was performed under Step 2B, with court case citations, which didn’t result in the claim being eligible under USC 101. In comparison to Bascom, examiner points out that Bascom is not similar to the present application because Bascom claimed a technical improvement in the art i.e., a technology-based solution to filter content on the internet while the present application is not presenting an improvement (as indicated above). Applicant’s specification never really sets out to solve problems with computer technology and instead acknowledges benefits of using off-the-shelf computer technology. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). The applicant has not demonstrated that their invention is inventive. Thus, the present invention is not patent-eligible under USC 101. Therefore, the USC 101 rejection is strongly maintained.
Prior Art Cited but Not Relied Upon
Zervas, M., & Karakasidis, A. (2024). Towards Split Learning-based Privacy-Preserving Record Linkage. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01088.
This reference is relevant because it discloses record matching through splitting.
US20210158907A1
This reference is relevant it is the applicant’s own reference with parallel disclosure on patient record matching.
US20230088474A1:
This reference is relevant it is the applicant’s own reference with parallel disclosure on patient record matching.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WINSTON FURTADO whose telephone number is (571)272-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/WINSTON R FURTADO/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights