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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a final office action.
Claims [1-20] are currently pending and have been examined on their merits.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18-19 are currently amended see REMARKS March 23, 2026.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception that is an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 recite a method (i.e. a process such as an act or series of steps), claims 8-14 recite an apparatus, and claims 15-20 recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and therefore each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The representative claims 1, 8, and 15 recite: A method for rating a medical facility based on complication rates, comprising: storing aggregated patient information, obtained from a group of data sources, in an anonymized format; determining, for each procedure of a group of procedures, a temporal filter for complications associated with the procedure based on the aggregated patient information obtained from the group of data sources, the group of data sources storing encrypted patient data; provide updated patient data, provides the updated patient data in a coded format dependent on a type of data source, of the group of data sources; extracting updated patient information by parsing, the updated patient data in the coded format; updating the aggregated patient information of the collection of health records by storing the extracted updated patient information in the anonymized format; automatically updating the temporal filter based on the updated aggregated patient information whenever updated information has been stored; identifying, from the updated aggregated patient information, a group of patients having performed a same procedure at the medical facility; filtering, from the group of patients, complications associated with the group of patients based on the updated temporal filter to generate a list of filtered complications; and generating a rating for the medical facility based on a quantity of complications in the list of filtered complications.
The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity as the disclosure recites commercial or legal interactions. The claims merely recite a method to generate a rating for a medical facility based on the received information to help a user to determine a facility for treatment. As the claims recite a method for rating medical facilities based on complication rates by obtaining information from data sources, identifying and filtering information to generate a list of complications, and generating a rating based on the quantity of complications in the list. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea of a commercial interaction as the claims generate a rating that can be used by users to review and select a medical facility for various procedures.
Alternatively, the claims recite a mental process. The examiner finds the claims to be similar to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis." The claims merely recite a method for generating a rating for a medical facility based on a complication rate. The claims recite a series of steps to receive information from a plurality of sources, identify a group of patients having performed a same procedure, filtering and grouping information to generate a list of complications associated with the group of patients, and generate a rating for the medical facility based on the quantity of complications. Therefore, the examiner finds the claims to be similar to examples the courts have identified as reciting a mental process including observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. The method of receiving user information, observing and evaluating the information to generate a filtered list, and determining a rating for a facility based on the quantity of complications is a mental process. As a person is mentally, or with simple tools such as a pen and paper, capable of receiving patient information and analyzing the information to determine a quantity of complications at a specific facility, within a specific amount of time, associated with a specific type of operation. Therefore, the claims recite a mental process.
The examiner finds the claims to recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?): The claims additionally recite;
Claim 1: a group of data sources managed by multiple disparate computing systems, one or more network-based non-transitory computer-readable storage media having a collection of health records stored thereon; providing remote access to the multiple disparate computing systems over a network so any one of the computing systems can provide updated patient data through an interface; a large language model customized to process medical codes; and wherein the rating is populated on a user interface displayed on a user computing device.
Claim 8: An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors and storing processor-executable code that, when executed by the one or more processors, is configured to cause the apparatus, a group of data sources managed by multiple disparate computing systems, one or more network-based non-transitory computer-readable storage media having a collection of health records stored thereon; providing remote access to the multiple disparate computing systems over a network so any one of the computing systems can provide updated patient data through an interface; a large language model customized to process medical codes; and wherein the rating is populated on a user interface displayed on a user computing device.
Claim 15: A non-transitory computer-readable medium having program code recorded thereon, the program code executed by one or more processors, a group of data sources managed by multiple disparate computing systems, one or more network-based non-transitory computer-readable storage media having a collection of health records stored thereon; providing remote access to the multiple disparate computing systems over a network so any one of the computing systems can provide updated patient data through an interface; a large language model customized to process medical codes; and wherein the rating is populated on a user interface displayed on a user computing device.
The additional element of using generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea are directed to merely applying the known use of a computer to store and execute the method in the recited claim limitations. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the 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. As the claims are merely directed to utilizing generic computer elements to receive and process information to perform the abstract idea of generating a rating for a medical facility based on a quantity of complications.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?): As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims merely recite using generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more as they do not recite any improvements to a technology or technical field.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea of receiving and analyzing information from a plurality of sources to determine a rating for a medical facility based on a series of factors.
The dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claims 2, 9, and 16: one or more internet sources, one or more scientific databases, and one or more clinical databases.
Claims 3, 10, and 17: a first machine learning model.
Claims 4, 11, and 18: a second machine learning model.
However, the additional elements are directed to merely “apply it” or applying generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed March 23, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the current claims are directed to a practical application as they recite process for interacting with various computing systems and components to obtain real-time data and using the data to generate a medical facility rating and populate a user interface. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the claim recite storing aggregated patient information obtained from a group of data sources, determining a temporal filter for complications associated with the procedure based on the aggregated patient data; providing access to update the patient data; extracting updated patient information, updating the aggregated patient data, identifying a group of patients having performed a same procedure in the medical facility; filtering complications associated with the group of patients and generating a rating for the medical facility based on a quantity of complications. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea as they recite a series of steps that can be done mentally such as receiving and analyzing patient and complication rate information to determine or generate a rating or score for a medical facility as well as a method of organizing human activity. The examiner further finds that the additional elements are directed to merely “apply it” or applying generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea. As the additional elements merely recite a plurality of generic computer elements to perform basic functions of receiving, analyzing, storing, and displaying information to a user to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements do not direct the claims to a practical application and do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the current 101 rejection.
Applicant argues that claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are allowable as being dependent on claims 1, 8, and 15 and therefore are rejected under the same rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed March 23, 2026, with respect to the rejections of 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastogi (US 2009/0125348) in view of Harder (US 2025/0021913) are persuasive.
Claims 1, 8, and 15: Applicant argues that the current prior art does not disclose the amended claim limitations. Upon further search and consideration the examiner agrees that the current prior art does not disclose the amended claim limitations “providing remote access to the multiple disparate computing systems over a network so any one of the computing systems can provide updated patient data through an interface, wherein the one of the computing systems provides the updated patient data in a coded format dependent on a type of data source, of the group of data sources, managed by the one of the computing systems; extracting updated patient information by parsing, by a large language model customized to process medical codes, the updated patient data in the coded format; updating the aggregated patient information of the collection of health records by storing the extracted updated patient information in the anonymized format; automatically updating the temporal filter based on the updated aggregated patient information whenever updated information has been stored.”
The closest prior art Rastogi (US 2009/0125348) discloses a system of generating a rating for a healthcare provider. Rastogi discloses a system for receiving patient information including information pertaining to the patient’s stay and procedures and analyzing the information to generate an overall rating score for the facility pertaining to a plurality of categories.
The second closest prior art Cox (US 2018/0211008) teaches a system of allowing a user to select and view a medical facility based on the facilities frequency and history of complications and care for a particular procedure. Cox further teaches a system of receiving demographic and other patient data to present the user with a ranked list of facilities based on the risk of complications and cost for each.
The third closest prior art Ho (US 2003/0163349) teaches a system of rating the quality of a health care provider. Ho teaches a system of collecting a plurality of data from patients and generating a rating or score based on the collected previous patient information.
However, the current prior art individually or in combination are not found to disclose the amended claim limitations.
Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are allowable over U.S.C. 103.
Claims 2-6, 9-14, and 16-20 were argued as being allowable only as being dependent on claims 1, 8, and 15. Therefore, they are also allowable over U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Bundschus (US 2010/0174557) System and method for ranking quality improvement factors in patient care.
Menghini (US 2020/0020041) Apparatus, method, and medium for surgery risk calculation.
Beyder (US 2021/0210197) System and methods for improving patient satisfaction.
Lee (US 2019/0108909) Healthcare facility patient and visitor experience management and optimization.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 COREY RUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-5902. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on 5712726782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/COREY RUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights