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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed 14 January 2026:
Claims 1,5,6,8,46 are amended
Claims 2-3 are cancelled
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 13, 17, 21-24, 36, 38, 30-33, 46 are pending
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“data access module configured to” in claims 1, 46.
“data processing module configured to” in claims 1, 46.
“data distribution module configured to” in claims 1, 46.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Specification at Para. 0040 ties the modules to a processor, this providing sufficient structure to the various modules.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claim(s) 1,5-6, 8-9, 13, 17, 21-24, 36, 38, 30-33,46 recite subject matter that is free of prior art. In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of:
Claims 1, 46 describe(s) processing indicator information of medical data using a data analysis model with a particular mathematical formula that is not found in the prior art in relation to patient treatment.
Claims 5-6, 8-9, 13, 17, 21-24, 36, 38, 30-33 depend on Claim 1.
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 1,5-6, 8-9, 13, 17, 21-24, 36, 38, 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1,46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a system, method and device, which are within a statutory category.
The limitations of:
Claims 1 and 46 (Claim 1 being representative)
and wherein the indicator information of the medical data of the subject to be treated comprises n fields, wherein an i-th field represents a (i-1)*m+1-th bit to an i*m-th bit of a binary value of an indicator of the medical data of the subject to be treated, and m is a positive integer;
and the indicator information of the medical data of the subject to be treated is analyzed by the data analysis model through the following formula:
y
=
∑
i
=
1
n
f
2
f
1
x
,
l
*
(
2
m
)
(
i
-
1
where the function
f
1
x
is configured to convert an object into a binary value, and
f
3
x
, is configured to convert an object into a decimal value.
as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mathematical concept that includes mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer component language. See Specification, e.g., at para. 0022. That is, other than reciting the generic computer component language, the claim recites a system for analyzing medical data that encompasses a mathematical concept. For example, but for the generic computer component language, the claim encompasses obtaining and analyzing medical data. The Examiner notes that the mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer component language, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitations of:
Claims 1, 46 (Claim 1 being representative)
collect medical data of a subject to be treated and upload the medical data to a data lake cluster;
perform data access, data processing, data storage and data distribution for the medical data of the subject to be treated;
obtain the medical data of the subject to be treated,
determine a corresponding target access manner according to a type and access the medical data of the subject to be treated in the target access manner;
analyze indicator information of the medical data of the subject to be treated, and establish a mapping relationship between each piece of indicator information and a standard indicator;
distribute the medical data of the subject to be treated processed, wherein analyzing in the data processing module the indicator information of the medical data of the subject to be treated comprises:
analyzing the indicator information of the medical data of the subject to be treated uploaded;
modeling based on an analytical protocol;
as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to obtain and analyze medical data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “collecting, deploying, obtaining, determining, distributing, analyzing, modeling and converting” as indicated supra. Other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), i.e., a system implemented by a data lake cluster (computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The Examiner notes that the data processing, storage and distribution are being performed by the data lake and is thus the computer performing all the abstract idea steps. The other computers are the additional elements. The data lake clusters are generic distributed computing (See Spec Para 0036) performed by a networked series of generic computers.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of an emergency treatment system, medical business system, data lake, data access module, and data distribution module, that implements the identified abstract idea. The emergency treatment system, medical business system, data lake, data access module, and data distribution module are not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic server performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims further recite the additional elements of an information collection terminal deployed in an ambulance vehicle and data analysis model. The information collection terminal deployed in an ambulance vehicle and data analysis model merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 of using a emergency treatment system, medical business system, data lake, data access module, and data distribution module to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of an information collection terminal deployed in an ambulance vehicle and data analysis model were determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 5-6, 8-9, 13, 17, 21-24, 36, 38, 30-33 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim(s) 5 merely describe(s) what the standard indicator contains and analyzing the standard indicator, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 6 merely describe(s) transmitting data between modules, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 6 also includes the additional element of “a first and second message platform” which is analyzed the same as the “information terminal” and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 8, 22-23 merely describe(s) data conversion relationship, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 9,13,17, 24, 26, 28 merely describe(s) input and output indicators, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 21 merely describe(s) obtaining the data conversion relationship, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 30 merely describe(s) collecting and analyzing data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 31-32 merely describe(s) storing and transmitting data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 33 merely describe(s) receiving a query request, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 30-33 also includes the additional element of “a management terminal” which is analyzed the same as the “information terminal” and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 13, 17, 21-24, 36, 38, 30-33, 46, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however the arguments are not persuasive. Any arguments inadvertently not addressed are unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. Applicant argues:
As amended, claim 1 is directed to a specific technical solution for a concrete technical problem arising in emergency medical environments, rather than an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim addresses the heterogeneity of data generated by medical devices from different manufacturers and models, which use different data formats, communication protocols, and interfaces, thereby preventing medical systems from reliably receiving and interpreting critical physiological data in real time. Amended claim 1 recites a practical application that enables real-time acquisition, parsing, and standardization of heterogeneous medical device data, thereby improving the functioning of a medical data processing system. Accordingly, any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, and the claim satisfies Step 2A, Prong Two.
Even assuming that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, the claim includes additional elements that amount to significantly more. First, the claim recites a data access module configured to determine a target access method based on a type of an information acquisition terminal. This module performs an adaptive technical interface function, dynamically selecting appropriate communication mechanisms for different physical medical devices, rather than merely receiving data using a generic computer. Second, the claim recites a device-specific data processing model constructed based on a parsing protocol corresponding to the information acquisition terminal. The associated mathematical formula is embedded within a technical process that converts raw, device-specific binary data into standardized and clinically meaningful medical parameters. This constitutes a technical application of mathematics, not mathematics in the abstract. Finally, the claimed cooperation of the data access module, data processing module, and data distribution module forms a specific technical system that achieves real-time interoperability of heterogeneous medical data. The resulting technical effect exceeds the use of a generic computer performing routine data processing.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear to the Examiner how the claims recite the solution mentioned. There is no reciting of real-time acquisition, parsing, and standardization of heterogeneous medical device data limitations in the claims. Furthermore, there is no support in the Specification of a problem of “medical devices from different manufacturers and models, which use different data formats, communication protocols, and interfaces, thereby preventing medical systems from reliably receiving and interpreting critical physiological data in real time.”
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. All of the limitations mentioned are just data processing that can be performed by a generic computer, including performing complex mathematical formulas. Furthermore, the adaptive interface function dynamically selecting appropriate communicate mechanisms for different physical medical devices, is not recited in the Claims. The Examiner also notes that mathematical formulas merely fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Finally, Applicant’s argument appears to acknowledge that the various data manipulations are, indeed, mathematical concepts.
The Examiner cannot suggest a path forward with regard to the lack of subject matter eligibility.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
BROWN et al (US Publication No. 20100017471) discloses systems and methods for providing improved medical care.
Noonan et al (US Publication No. 7430608) discloses system and a corresponding method processes data acquired from multiple medical devices located at one of multiple patient bed stations.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JONATHAN C EDOUARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730 - 430.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571) 272 - 6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN C EDOUARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683