DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/13/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 04/13/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1, 8, 11, and 15 have been amended; claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, and 16-20 remain unchanged; claims 5 and 12 have been canceled; and no new claims have been added.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 04/26/2023
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Applicant argues with respect to the amended claims and states that the amended claims do not recite an abstract concept. Applicant specifically points out Step 2A, Prong Two and states that any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Applicant explains that there is a conversion of schemas in the present claims using a reverse tokenization process allowing for identification of data from a device to occur. Applicant points out that there are improvements to speed and accuracy in the establishing of links between two different data sources. Examiner however would like to point out that the specification only outlines that there is an increase in both speed and accuracy of isolating a unique medical device (paragraph [0033] of specification). Furthermore, the increase and speed and accuracy appear to be based on taking the abstract idea and apply it using generic computing components.
Applicant further argues with respect to Example 42 and states that the present claims are similar to those in Example 42. Applicant states there are specific improvements over prior art systems by associating particular data with a specific device. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. An improvement involving associating data is not necessarily a technical improvement, it is moreover seen as an improvement to a generic abstract idea of data management for a patient.
Lastly, Applicant argues that the tokens include encrypted information and this is not a mental process. Examiner however respectfully disagrees as the tokens, as claimed, merely represent encrypted information. There is no storage of it. Furthermore, Examiner did not direct the claims towards mental concepts.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Examiner withdraws the previous 103 art rejection in view of the amendments to the claims.
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 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 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 1-4 and 6-7 are drawn to a method, claims 8-11 and 13-14 are drawn to a system, and claims 15-20 are drawn to a medium, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
1) extracting a set of medical device data from a) a first data source database (if hardware), wherein the set of medical device data comprises a first set of medical device identifiers in a first schema;
2) extracting a set of patient-level medical data from b) a second data source database (if hardware), wherein the set of patient-level medical data comprises personal identifiable information of a set of patients and a second set of medical device identifiers in a second schema that is different from the first schema;
3) executing, by c) a processing device, a token generation algorithm to generate a first set of tokens based on the set of medical device data, wherein each token of the first set of tokens represents a particular medical device and encrypted personal identifiable information of a patient associated with the particular medical device transformed into a third schema;
4) executing the token generation algorithm to generate a second set of tokens based on the set of patient-level medical data, wherein each token of the second set of tokens represents a particular medical record comprising personal identifiable information of a particular patient and a set of medical data associated with the particular patient transformed into the third schema;
5) generating a set of similarity scores based on comparisons of each token of the first set of tokens and each token of the second set of tokens using a probabilistic matching process, wherein only the first set of tokens and the second set of tokens are compared to one another to identify the subset of matching tokens, wherein the first set of tokens and the second set of tokens are in the third schema;
6) identifying a subset of matching tokens based on the set of similarity scores;
7) performing one or more remediation actions comprising de-duplication of the subset of matching tokens to generate one or more joined remediated datasets;
8) generating a dataset comprising a set of merged records corresponding to the one or more joined remediated datasets, wherein each merged record of the set of merged records comprises data linking the particular medical device from the medical device data to the set of medical data associated with the particular patient from the set of patient-level medical data;
9) enabling access to the set of merged records of the dataset to query the dataset to identify at least a portion of the set of medical data associated with the particular patient linked to the particular medical device for use in generating analytics; and
10) determining, based on the set of merged records, that a medical event associated with the particular patient is linked to the particular medical device.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) extracting a set of medical device data from a first data source database (if mental memory), wherein the set of medical device data comprises a first set of medical device identifiers in a first schema, 2) extracting a set of patient-level medical data from a second data source database (if mental memory), wherein the set of patient-level medical data comprises personal identifiable information of a set of patients and a second set of medical device identifiers in a second schema that is different from the first schema, 3) executing a token generation algorithm to generate a first set of tokens based on the set of medical device data, wherein each token of the first set of tokens represents a particular medical device and encrypted personal identifiable information of a patient associated with the particular medical device transformed into a third schema, 4) executing the token generation algorithm to generate a second set of tokens based on the set of patient-level medical data, wherein each token of the second set of tokens represents a particular medical record comprising personal identifiable information of a particular patient and a set of medical data associated with the particular patient transformed into the third schema, 5) generating a set of similarity scores based on comparisons of each token of the first set of tokens and each token of the second set of tokens, wherein the first set of tokens and the second set of tokens are in the third schema, 6) identifying a subset of matching tokens based on the set of similarity scores, 7) performing one or more remediation actions comprising de-duplication of the subset of matching tokens to generate one or more joined remediated datasets, 8) generating a dataset comprising a set of merged records corresponding to the one or more joined remediated datasets, wherein each merged record of the set of merged records comprises data linking the particular medical device from the medical device data to the set of medical data associated with the particular patient from the set of patient-level medical data, 9) enabling access to the set of merged records of the dataset to query the dataset to identify at least a portion of the set of medical data associated with the particular patient linked to the particular medical device for use in generating analytics, and 10) determining, based on the set of merged records, that a medical event associated with the particular patient is linked to the particular medical device. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how to identify and associate devices with patients and share the associated information. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations and are also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, and 16-20 include all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 2, 9, and 16 add the additional step of “generating a similarity score based on a comparison of a first token of the first set of tokens and a second token of the second set of tokens” and claims 3, 10, and 17 add the additional step of “in response to determining that a condition is satisfied based on the similarity score, including the first token and the second token in the subset of matching tokens”. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 4, 6-7, 11, 13-14, and 18-20 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, and 16-20 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) a first database (if hardware), b) a second database (if hardware), c) a processing device operatively coupled to the memory, the processing device to execute the instructions, and d) a memory to store instructions (from claim 8) to perform the claimed steps.
The a) a first database, b) a second database, c) a processing device, and d) a memory in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0051] where there is a general-purpose processor, paragraph [0059] where there are general-purpose systems, and paragraph [0052] where there are generic memories, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. 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, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a) a first database, b) a second database, c) a processing device, and d) a memory to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(f) recites that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention generates a dataset and enables access to records utilizing a) a first database, b) a second database, c) a processing device, and d) a memory, thus these computing components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
No Art Rejections
Claims 1-5, 6-11, and 13-20 do not have an art rejection om view of the potential combination of references which could be used together to reject these claims being an unreasonable combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights