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 .
The present Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination dated 18 June 2026.
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 18 June 2026has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
In the RCE filed 18 June 2026:
Claims 1 and 46 have been amended.
Claims 1, 6, 8-9, 13, 17, 21-24, 26, 28, 30-33, and 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.
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, 6, 8-9, 13, 17, 21-24, 26, 28, 30-33, and 46 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.
Step 1
The claim recites a system, method and device, which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
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, wherein the emergency treatment system further comprises:
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;
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 comprises:
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 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;
receive alarm information and obtain a position of a subject to be treated, and dispatch, according to a preset dispatch algorithm, an ambulance vehicle to the position of the subject to be treated for treatment;
and dispatch, according to real-time medical data and historical medical data of the subject to be treated, an internal rescuer of a medical institution to provide remote diagnosis and a remote device operation,
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, data analysis model and dispatch center terminal. The information collection terminal deployed in an ambulance vehicle, data analysis model and dispatch center terminal merely generally link 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 an 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, data analysis model and dispatch center terminal 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 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) 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, 6, 8-9, 13, 17, 21-24, 26, 28, 30-33, and 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:
The Advisory Action states that the alleged technical problems argued by Applicant are not supported by the Specification.
Applicant respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [00125] expressly identifies deficiencies existing in conventional emergency treatment systems: "there is information isolation between hospitals and ambulance vehicles in conventional emergency treatments. In some instances, some emergency equipment equipped on the ambulance vehicles can provide medical data transmission functions, but there is still a lack of unified management capabilities for medical data."
Thus, the Specification expressly identifies at least two technological problems:
(1) information isolation between hospital-side systems and ambulance-side systems; and
(2) lack of unified management of transmitted medical data.
Furthermore, paragraph [00126] explains that medical data originating from different sources are transmitted to a data lake cluster for integration and unified processing, thereby allowing different participants to access and analyze the data through selected tools and frameworks.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Specification at Para. 00125-00126 does not provide support for the statements made in the Remarks filed 18 May 2026 regarding the technical problem. Furthermore, the problem is data isolation is not a problem caused by the computer or technological environment. Data isolation is a problem that can exist regardless of whether a computer is involved.
Claim 1 does not merely recite collecting and analyzing information. Instead, claim 1 recites a specific architecture including: … [ … ] … The claim further recites that the data analysis model is generated based on analytical protocols and interface protocols corresponding to the information collection terminal. Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to a particular technological mechanism for processing heterogeneous medical-device data rather than a generalized concept of analyzing information. The claim therefore recites a specific improvement in the manner in which emergency medical data are acquired, interpreted, standardized, and distributed among interconnected medical systems.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Processing heterogeneous medical device data is collecting and analyzing information. The type of data does not change the fact that the process, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is collecting and analyzing information. Therefore, no practical application is found.
The Office has indicated that claim 1 recites a mathematical concept because the claim includes a mathematical formula. Applicants respectfully submit that the recited formula is not claimed in isolation and is not used for performing a mathematical calculation for its own sake. Rather, the formula forms part of a protocol-specific parsing mechanism utilized by the data analysis model to extract indicator information from medical-device data received from ambulance-side information collection terminals. The mathematical operation is therefore inseparably tied to a practical technological implementation and does not constitute an abstract mathematical concept performed in isolation. Consistent with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a judicial exception that is integrated into a practical application is not directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The distinction between mathematical concept and what the Applicant argues the Claim as reciting is lost when the claims explicitly recite mathematical concepts in the claim.
The Specification explains that conventional emergency treatment systems suffer from information isolation and lack unified management of medical data. The claimed invention addresses these deficiencies through protocol-based data interpretation, indicator standardization, and centralized data-lake processing. As a result, medical data generated by ambulance-side emergency devices can be transformed into standardized medical information that can be utilized by hospital-side medical systems. The claimed invention therefore improves interoperability among emergency medical information systems. Such improvements are directed to the functioning of technological systems and represent a practical technological application rather than mere manipulation of information.
Regarding (d), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. This is not a technical problem caused by the computer or technological environment. Therefore, no technical application found.
This amendment further demonstrates that the claimed data processing is not performed merely to organize, store, or display information. Instead, the processed and standardized medical data are utilized to support specific emergency-treatment functions, including remote diagnosis and remote operation of medical equipment. These recited operations constitute concrete technological uses of the processed medical data within an emergency medical system. Importantly, the claimed protocol-based interpretation and standardization of medical data enable the remote diagnosis and remote device operation recited in claim 1. Without transforming heterogeneous medical-device data into standardized medical information, the downstream emergency-treatment operations could not be reliably performed across different systems and devices. Accordingly, the claimed invention applies the processed medical data to specific technological activities within an emergency medical environment rather than merely presenting information to a user.
Regarding (e), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The application of the processing step does not change the fact that the claims still recite processing and displaying data.
When considered as a whole, claim 1 recites a specific technological architecture that receives medical-device data from ambulance-side equipment, performs protocol-based data interpretation, distributes standardized medical information through a data lake cluster, and utilizes the resulting information to support remote diagnosis and remote device operation.
Regarding (f), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection is considered as a whole and recites the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully points to the 101 Section of this Rejection for full explanation.
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:
Dillie et al (US Publication No. 20140365241) discloses a system and method for a platform as a service solution stack for real-time, bi-directional dynamic routing of vendor agnostic pre-hospital electronic records to/from a health care provider.
Greischar et al (US Publication No. 20090018869) discloses a system and a method for providing information about resource availability, especially during an emergency such as a natural disaster.
GAO et al (Foreign Publication WO-2020011244-A1) discloses a method and system for optimized matching of medical resources for emergency and severe disease rescue.
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
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights