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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03 February 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3-8,10,12-15,17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for visualization of data, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a selection of a plurality of tests;
receiving, by the processor and from a database including a plurality of disparate data sources, each data source containing one or more test results for each test of the plurality of tests, the one or more test results for each test of the plurality of tests, wherein each test of the plurality of tests comprises a corresponding data type that is configured as a continuous data type or a discrete data type based on values being impacted by factors other than those which the continuous data type represents;
providing, by the processor, the one or more test results from the plurality of disparate data sources to a visualization engine in a common format to aggregate data describing the one or more test results for display in a graphical user interface by the visualization engine;
generating, by the processor, the graphical user interface;
populating, by the processor, the graphical user interface with a plurality of category tabs, wherein each category tab of the plurality of category tabs is generated for a different test of the plurality of tests;
receiving, by the processor, a selection of a condition preset based on a predetermined guideline or a clinical advice profile for monitoring test results;
providing, by the processor, an indication of missing test results based on the selected condition preset;
populating, by the processor, the graphical user interface with a plurality of data lanes, wherein each data lane of the plurality of data lanes extends from a corresponding category tab of the plurality of category tabs;
populating, by the processor, at least some of the plurality of data lanes with one or more data points scaled to unified units for visual comparison, wherein each data point of the one or more data points represents a subset of the one or more test results of a corresponding test of the plurality of tests, wherein each data point of the one or more data points has an associated data source, and wherein the associated data source is indicated on the data lane by a unique graphical representation;
populating, by the processor and for each data lane of the plurality of data lanes that has a test of the plurality of tests with the continuous data type, the data lane with a trend line that follows or deviates from the one or more data points of the data lane based on a set tension that determines outlier influence;
populating, by the processor, each data lane of the plurality of data lanes with ideal ranges for corresponding data points of the one or more data points, wherein the ideal ranges are populated at the same position on the graphical user interface as the corresponding data points; and
rearranging, by the processor, the plurality of data lanes to list a particular data lane vertically above other data lanes of the plurality of data lanes.
Step 1:
The claim as a whole falls within at least one statutory category, i.e. a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A Prong One:
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” because the highlighted steps may be performed by a human being when processing a patient’s data, i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Mental processes”.
But for a generic computer invoked with a high level of generality in a post hoc manner to implement the abstract idea, the highlighted steps may be practically performed in the human mind either mentally or with pen and paper.
Accordingly, these limitations have been found to be directed towards concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The different categories of abstract ideas are being considered together as one single abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(II)(B)
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s), if any:
receiving, by a processor, a selection of a plurality of tests;
receiving, by the processor and from a database including a plurality of disparate data sources, each data source containing one or more test results for each test of the plurality of tests, the one or more test results for each test of the plurality of tests, wherein each test of the plurality of tests comprises a corresponding data type that is configured as a continuous data type or a discrete data type based on values being impacted by factors other than those which the continuous data type represents;
providing, by the processor, the one or more test results from the plurality of disparate data sources to a visualization engine in a common format to aggregate data describing the one or more test results for display in a graphical user interface by the visualization engine;
generating, by the processor, the graphical user interface;
receiving, by the processor, a selection of a condition preset based on a predetermined guideline or a clinical advice profile for monitoring test results.
The additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se.
The processor amount(s) to mere instructions to apply an exception (invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). MPEP 2106.05(f))
The steps of receiving data (including from disparate sources), providing data, and generating data for a GUI merely add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application). MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which amount to limitation(s) consistent with the additional element(s) in the independent claims (such as claim(s) 4 reciting visualizing data, claim 7 reciting a drop down menu, additional limitation(s) which add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The additional elements, as discussed above and incorporated herein, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking to a particular technological environment using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The steps of receiving and providing data amount(s) to element(s) that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity in particular fields (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Regarding the GUI, Krahner (6436058) discloses that a GUI and associated elements are WURC in the pertinent arts (paragraph 0102, Figure 12).
Regarding the disparate sources, Krahner discloses a plurality of computers and devices interacting to provide data as being WURC in the pertinent arts (column 8 line 35-45).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claim(s) 4 reciting visualizing data, claim 7 reciting a drop down menu, Krahner discloses a GUI with a menu as being WURC in the pertinent arts (Figure 4A illustrating a plurality of menus).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 8,10,12-15,17 and 19-20 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 1, 3-7 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claim(s) 1,3-8,10,12-15,17 and 19-20 distinguish(es) over the prior art for the following reasons.
The following is a statement of reasons for the subject matter free of prior art:
Claim 1: the primary reason for the indication of subject matter free of prior art is the inclusion of the following limitations in the combination as recited in the abstract concept and not found in the closest available prior art of record:
receiving, by the processor and from a database including a plurality of disparate data sources, each data source containing one or more test results for each test of the plurality of tests, the one or more test results for each test of the plurality of tests, wherein each test of the plurality of tests comprises a corresponding data type that is configured as a continuous data type or a discrete data type based on values being impacted by factors other than those which the continuous data type represents;
providing, by the processor, the one or more test results from the plurality of disparate data sources to a visualization engine in a common format to aggregate data describing the one or more test results for display in a graphical user interface by the visualization engine;
generating, by the processor, the graphical user interface;
populating, by the processor, the graphical user interface with a plurality of category tabs, wherein each category tab of the plurality of category tabs is generated for a different test of the plurality of tests;
receiving, by the processor, a selection of a condition preset based on a predetermined guideline or a clinical advice profile for monitoring test results;
providing, by the processor, an indication of missing test results based on the selected condition preset;
populating, by the processor, the graphical user interface with a plurality of data lanes, wherein each data lane of the plurality of data lanes extends from a corresponding category tab of the plurality of category tabs;
populating, by the processor, at least some of the plurality of data lanes with one or more data points scaled to unified units for visual comparison, wherein each data point of the one or more data points represents a subset of the one or more test results of a corresponding test of the plurality of tests, wherein each data point of the one or more data points has an associated data source, and wherein the associated data source is indicated on the data lane by a unique graphical representation;
populating, by the processor and for each data lane of the plurality of data lanes that has a test of the plurality of tests with the continuous data type, the data lane with a trend line that follows or deviates from the one or more data points of the data lane based on a set tension that determines outlier influence;
populating, by the processor, each data lane of the plurality of data lanes with ideal ranges for corresponding data points of the one or more data points, wherein the ideal ranges are populated at the same position on the graphical user interface as the corresponding data points; and
rearranging, by the processor, the plurality of data lanes to list a particular data lane vertically above other data lanes of the plurality of data lanes
The closest available prior art of record are as follows:
Ginsberg (20230073347) discloses rows and columns of patient data (Figure 32 label 2354), but does not fairly disclose or suggest at least configuring data as continuous or discrete based on values being impacted by factors other than those represented by continuous data, data lanes with unique icons representing the associated data source, displaying trend line for each data lane based on set tension used to determine outliers, and rearranging the data lanes vertically.
Stroup (20070016440) discloses a plurality of lab results displayed on a chart with trendline and identified conformity to a standard (Figure 36); but does not fairly disclose or suggest at least configuring data as continuous or discrete based on values being impacted by factors other than those represented by continuous data, data lanes with unique icons representing the associated data source, displaying trend line for each data lane based on set tension used to determine outliers, and rearranging the data lanes vertically.
Based on the evidence presented above, none of the closest available prior art of record fairly discloses or suggests the claimed invention. For this reason, claim 1 would be found to be subject matter free of prior art.
Claim(s) 3-7: this/these claim(s) would also be found to be subject matter free of prior art for at least the same rationale as applied to parent claim 1 above, and incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 8,10,12-15,17 and 19-20: this/these claim(s) would also be found to be subject matter free of prior art for substantially similar rationale as applied to claim(s) 1, 3-7 above, and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed on 03 February 2026, Applicant makes numerous arguments. Examiner will address these arguments in the order presented.
On page 10-11 Applicant argues the display provides practical application and/or significantly more.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, they are not found persuasive because they are directed towards features that are part of the abstract idea (see section above for identification of the abstract idea, and incorporated herein). Even newly discovered abstract ideas are still abstract ideas.
Applicant’s arguments on page 12 with respect to the rejection of pending claims under Section 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of all claims under Section 102 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Raghavan (20230102389) discloses a GUI with lanes for displaying patient data (Figure 52) in a manner similar to those disclosed in the instant pending Specification as originally filed.
Becker (20230065860) discloses patient service data with trendline (Figure 11) in a manner similar to those disclosed in the instant pending Specification as originally filed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM Eastern.
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, KAMBIZ ABDI can be reached on (571)272-6702. 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.
/T.N.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 3685 /KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights