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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 01/20/2026. Claims 1, 8, 19, 44, 46-47, 50-51 have been amended. Claims 6-7 have been canceled. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 14-15, 19-23, 42-48, 50-51 are presented for examination.
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 1-2, 4-5, 8, 14-15, 19-23, 42-48, 50-51 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. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Claim 1 is drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., method). Claim 12 is drawn to a device which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine).
Independent claim 50 (which is representative of independent claims 1, 51) recites…(a)…validating the membershiped information provider, wherein the membershiped information provider is registered as a member…; (b) receive a category of interest corresponding to a topic of interest of the membershiped information provider; (c) provide a…instruction to…the membershiped information provider to input information on the topic of interest of the membershiped information provider…; (d) receive time-series information, which is information on the topic of interest input…, in a time-series manner, wherein the time-series information is generated by inputting information on the topic of interest at least twice at time intervals; and (e) generate MIR using the time series information, wherein the MIR is an edited information record, wherein the MIR is tracked..., wherein the edited information record includes a plurality of MIR editions in which an edition is assigned to each of the MIR editions.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations noted above, as drafted, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people…following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a membership-led information record (MIR) server” (claim 1) and a “processor” (claims 50-51), the claim encompasses rules or instructions to collect data and generate a record based on the collected data for a user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships 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 claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites additional elements (i.e., a membership-led information record (MIR) server; receiving, by the MIR server, log on information from a terminal of a membershiped information provider in which a MIR application is executed; wherein the terminal environment-controlling instruction includes an information editing module, an information sharing-range setting module, and an information record sheet that is used in the terminal of the membershiped information provider; a tracking module of the MIR server). Claim 50 recites additional elements (i.e., A computing device for generating a membershiped information record sheet in a membership-led information record (MIR) server, the computing device comprising: a memory configured to store at least one instruction; and a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory; receive, by the MIR server, log on information from a terminal of a membershiped information provider in which a MIR application is executed; wherein the terminal environment-controlling instruction includes an information editing module, an information sharing-range setting module, and an information record sheet that is used in the terminal of the membershiped information provider; a tracking module of the MIR server). Claim 51 recites additional elements (i.e., A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer executable instructions; a processor; a membership-led information record (MIR) server; receiving, by the MIR server, log on information from a terminal of a membershiped information provider in which a MIR application is executed; wherein the terminal environment-controlling instruction includes an information editing module, an information sharing-range setting module, and an information record sheet that is used in the terminal of the membershiped information provider; a tracking module of the MIR server). Looking to the specifications, a server; a computing device having a memory configured to store at least one instruction, processor; a terminal in which an application is executed; a terminal environment-controlling instruction; modules is described at a high level of generality (¶ 0062; ¶ 00156), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, “receiving…log on information from a terminal” only provides input data for the performance of the abstract idea, and as such, amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e., data gathering). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. 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. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Reevaluated under step 2B, the additional elements noted above do not provide “significantly more” when taken either individually or as an ordered combination. The use of a general purpose computer or computers (i.e., a server; a computing device having a memory configured to store at least one instruction, processor; a terminal in which an application is executed; a terminal environment-controlling instruction; modules) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and does not impose any meaningful limitation on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, so it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Also, the limitations of “receiving…log on information from a terminal” is determined to constitute well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions; receiving or transmitting data over a network has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. See: MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as the courts have found in Parker v. Flook; similarly, the current invention merely limits the claimed calculations to the healthcare industry which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Therefore, there are no limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 4-5, 8, 14-15, 19-23, 42-48 include all the limitations of the parent claims and further elaborate on the abstract idea discussed above and incorporated herein.
Claims 2, 4-5, 8, 14-15, 19-23, 42-48 further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claims 11 further recites the additional elements of “a second handheld device,” which only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, the limitations of “transmitting the encrypted file to a second handheld device, decrypting the encrypted file by the second handheld device, and reading the electronic medical record image by the second handheld device from the decrypted file” is determined to constitute well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. As evidenced by LaBorde (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2016/0154941 A1) (LaBorde: ¶ 0039; ¶ 0043) and King et al. (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2018/0096203 A1, hereinafter referred to as "King") (King: ¶ 0043; ¶ 0821), using a handheld device to receive, decrypt, and read a file is well-understood, routine, and conventional and thus, do not amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. See: MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Although the dependent claims add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8, 14-15, 19-23, 42-48, 50-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2019/0026434 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Yadav") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2017/0161439 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Raduchel") and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2009/0307137 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "White").
Regarding (currently amended) claim 1, Yadav teaches a method of generating a member information record sheet to be performed by a membership-led information record (MIR) server, the method comprising:
(a) receiving, by the MIR server, log on information from a terminal of a membershiped information provider in which a MIR application is executed and validating the membershiped information provider, wherein the membershiped information provider is registered as a member in the MIR application (Yadav: ¶ 0017-0019);
(b) receiving a category of interest corresponding to a topic of interest of the membershiped information provider (Yadav: figure 2, i.e., exemplary user interface is displayed for “Histories” including “Family”; ¶ 0038, i.e., “components 201A, 201B, 201C, . . . , 201n and components 202A, 202B, 202C, . . . , 202n are navigational components that, when selected, navigate the electronic medical records application to a corresponding component of an electronic medical record”);
(c) providing a terminal environment-controlling instruction to the terminal of the membershiped information provider to input information on the topic of interest of the membershiped information provider (Yadav: ¶ 0030, i.e., “User device interface 152 generally provides the interface to facility engine 150 for user devices 105A, 105B, . . . , 105n (e.g., via backend interface 128 of electronic medical records application 120)”; ¶ 0038, i.e., “The Family History component user interface 200 includes inputs 225 and 226 for adding and modifying family member information 220”)…
Yet, Yadav does not explicitly teach, but Raduchel teaches, in the same field of endeavor,
…wherein the terminal environment-controlling instruction (Raduchel: ¶ 0114, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood “the user interface 600 for adding a record” of Raduchel as the “user interface 200…for adding and modifying family member information 220” of Yadav, which Examiner interprets as the claimed terminal environment-controlling instruction) includes an information editing module, an information sharing-range setting module, and an information record sheet that is used in the terminal of the membershiped information provider (Raduchel: ¶ 0114-0121);
(d) receiving time-series information, which is information on the topic of interest input through the MIR application, in a time-series manner, wherein the time-series information is generated by inputting information on the topic of interest at least twice at time intervals (Raduchel: figure 6, i.e., user interface receives “Record Information” on the “Category” “Orthopedic”; ¶ 0118; ¶ 0132, i.e., “electronic medical records information 715, 725, and 735 received”); and
(e) generating MIR using the time series information (Raduchel: ¶ 0131, i.e., “aggregates the electronic medical record information into a complete set of medical records for John Smith”)…, wherein the MIR is tracked by a tracking module of the MIR server (Raduchel: figure 7, i.e., each record is tracked by an associated date; ¶ 0124, i.e., Examiner interprets Raduchel to teach the claimed tracking module because “tracking module” is a non-functional label and Raduchel teaches “instructions executed by the processor in performing the described processes,” which performs the functions of the claimed tracking module)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include wherein the terminal environment-controlling instruction includes an information editing module, an information sharing-range setting module, and an information record sheet that is used in the terminal of the membershiped information provider; (d) receiving time-series information, which is information on the topic of interest input through the MIR application, in a time-series manner, wherein the time-series information is generated by inputting information on the topic of interest at least twice at time intervals; and (e) generating MIR using the time series information, wherein the MIR is tracked by a tracking module of the MIR server, as taught by Raduchel, within the system of Yadav, with the motivation for “the medical service provider is able to make a complete review of the relevant medical records and is able to access the relevant medical records in a timely manner” (Raduchel: ¶ 0039).
Yet, Yadav and Raduchel do not explicitly teach, but White teaches, in the same field of endeavor,
…wherein the MIR is an edited information record (White: ¶ 0015, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “updated version 62 of the healthcare record item 38” of White as the “complete set of medical records” of Raduchel, which Examiner interprets as the claimed MIR)…wherein the edited information record includes a plurality of MIR editions in which an edition is assigned to each of the MIR editions (White: figure 1, i.e., the “User account” 34 includes an “Original version” 40 and an “Updated version” 62; ¶ 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include wherein the MIR is an edited information record, wherein the edited information record includes a plurality of MIR editions in which an edition is assigned to each of the MIR editions, as taught by White, with the system of Yadav and Raduchel, with the motivation to “enable a user to retain the ability to edit user healthcare records in a user account of an online health information management system, while also providing a content recipient of the user healthcare records a mechanism for verifying the provenance of the data contained in the user healthcare records as originating from a specified content supplier” (White: ¶ 0038).
Regarding (original) claim 2, Yadav and Raduchel teach the method of claim 1, wherein the MIR is generated to include additional information that is further input one or more times at the time intervals after an intermediate MIR is generated using the input information on the topic of interest (Raduchel: figure 7, i.e., aggregated electronic medical record information on display 750 includes “R12: VIAGRA 06/04/07” after electronic medical record information 715 is generated; ¶ 0130).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Yadav and Raduchel are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Regarding (original) claim 4, Yadav and Raduchel teach the method of claim 1, wherein, in the tracking, the MIR server provides development history from a perspective of the time series manner (Raduchel: ¶ 0137, i.e., “arrange the aggregated electronic medical records by date”).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Yadav and Raduchel are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Regarding (original) claim 5, Yadav and Raduchel teach the method of claim 4, wherein the development history includes at least one history selected from the group consisting of a reception history of the time-series information, a change history of information on the topic of interest, and a creation history of the MIR (Raduchel: ¶ 0137, i.e., “arrange the aggregated electronic medical records by date”).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Yadav and Raduchel are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Regarding (currently amended) claim 8, Yadav, Raduchel, and White teach the method of claim 1, wherein, in the tracking, the MIR server provides development history in terms of the edition, and the development history includes the edition assignment history (White: ¶ 0015, i.e., “a user edit 30 to the healthcare record item 38, to thereby produce an updated version 62 of the healthcare record item 38…the updated version 62 of the healthcare record item 38 may be, for example, a first updated version 63 of the healthcare record item 38…third party edits 66 annotated with a digital signature 46 of the authorized third party editor 64 in the healthcare record item 38…produce a second updated version 68 of the healthcare record item 38”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include wherein, in the tracking, the MIR server provides development history in terms of the edition, and the development history includes the edition assignment history, as taught by White, with the system of Yadav, Raduchel, and White, with the motivation to “enable a user to retain the ability to edit user healthcare records in a user account of an online health information management system, while also providing a content recipient of the user healthcare records a mechanism for verifying the provenance of the data contained in the user healthcare records as originating from a specified content supplier” (White: ¶ 0038).
Regarding (original) claim 14, Yadav and Raduchel teach the method of claim 1, wherein the MIR server provides the membershiped information provider with the authority to edit the MIR (Raduchel: ¶ 0280) and determine an information sharing range of the MIR (Raduchel: ¶ 0120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include wherein the MIR server provides the membershiped information provider with the authority to edit the MIR and determine an information sharing range of the MIR, as taught by Raduchel, with the system of Yadav and Raduchel, with the motivation for “the medical service provider is able to make a complete review of the relevant medical records and is able to access the relevant medical records in a timely manner” (Raduchel: ¶ 0039).
Regarding (original) claim 15, Yadav and Raduchel teach the method of claim 14, wherein the editing is performed using the information editing module (Raduchel: ¶ 0118), and the determining of the range of sharing information is performed using the information sharing range setting module (Raduchel: ¶ 0120).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Yadav and Raduchel are discussed in the rejection of claim 14, and incorporated herein.
Regarding (currently amended) claim 19, Yadav, Raduchel, and White teach the method of claim 1, wherein, when the category of interest is healthcare, the MIR is a healthcare record of a user selected from the membershiped information provider and a patient managed by the membershiped information provider; and the MIR includes:
(i) a MIR edition including, as pre-visiting medical institution information, information on symptoms of a disease, disorder, or condition (Per MPEP § 2111.04(II), “the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met” and does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Examiner notes that the conditional limitation (i.e., “when the category of interest is healthcare”) does not require the remainder of the claim to be met in the event the condition is not met.);
(ii) a MIR edition including, as medical examination and treatment information, information including a result of medical examination, treatment, surgery, prescription medication and/or therapy done by a medical professional (Per MPEP § 2111.04(II), “the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met” and does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Examiner notes that the conditional limitation (i.e., “when the category of interest is healthcare”) does not require the remainder of the claim to be met in the event the condition is not met.); and
(iii) a MIR edition including, as post-medical treatment information, information on the user's progress after treatment (Per MPEP § 2111.04(II), “the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met” and does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Examiner notes that the conditional limitation (i.e., “when the category of interest is healthcare”) does not require the remainder of the claim to be met in the event the condition is not met.).
Regarding (original) claim 20, Yadav, Raduchel, and White teach the method of claim 19, wherein the pre-visiting medical institution information, the medical examination and treatment information, and the post- medical treatment information are types of time-series information (Per MPEP § 2111.04(II), “the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met” and does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Examiner notes that the conditional limitation (i.e., “when the category of interest is healthcare”) does not require the remainder of the claim to be met in the event the condition is not met.),
the time-series information is generated by inputting information on the topic of interest three or more times at time intervals (Raduchel: figure 7, i.e., multiple records are inputted at multiple dates; ¶ 0132),
one of the types of information input three or more times includes the pre-visiting medical institution information, another includes the medical examination and treatment information, and the other includes post-medical treatment information (Per MPEP § 2111.04(II), “the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met” and does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Examiner notes that the conditional limitation (i.e., “when the category of interest is healthcare”) does not require the remainder of the claim to be met in the event the condition is not met.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Yadav, Raduchel, and White are discussed in the rejection of claim 16, and incorporated herein.
Regarding (original) claim 21, Yadav, Raduchel, and White teach the method of claim 19, wherein the MIR is generated by
receiving and storing the pre-visiting medical institution information through the terminal of the membershiped information provider (Per MPEP § 2111.04(II), “the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met” and does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Examiner notes that the conditional limitation (i.e., “when the category of interest is healthcare”) does not require the remainder of the claim to be met in the event the condition is not met.);
receiving and storing the medical examination and treatment information of the user after treating the user at a medical institution (Per MPEP § 2111.04(II), “the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met” and does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Examiner notes that the conditional limitation (i.e., “when the category of interest is healthcare”) does not require the remainder of the claim to be met in the event the condition is not met.); and
receiving and storing the post-medical treatment information for the medical treatment through the terminal of the membershiped information provider (Per MPEP § 2111.04(II), “the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met” and does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Examiner notes that the conditional limitation (i.e., “when the category of interest is healthcare”) does not require the remainder of the claim to be met in the event the condition is not met.).
Regarding (original) claim 22, Yadav, Raduchel, and White teach the method of claim 21, further comprises, after generating the MIR, storing the MIR to be searched in a search DB (Raduchel: ¶ 0078, i.e., “The recipient electronic device 180 also may store, in electronic storage, the electronic medical records for record purposes and later retrieval”) to enable the MIR to be searchable (Examiner interprets this limitation as not patentably distinguishing the claimed invention from the cited prior art because it merely recites a statement of purpose, which is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result or natural consequence of the positively recited “storing the MIR”).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Yadav, Raduchel, and White are discussed in the rejection of claim 16, and incorporated herein.
Regarding (original) claim 23, Yadav, Raduchel, and White teach the method of claim 22, wherein the MIR stored in the search DB is searchable on the terminal of the membershiped information provider and/or another user terminal (Raduchel: ¶ 0078, i.e., “The recipient electronic device 180 also may store, in electronic storage, the electronic medical records for record purposes and later retrieval”).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Yadav, Raduchel, and White are discussed in the rejection of claim 16, and incorporated herein.
Regarding (original) claim 42, Yadav and Raduchel teach the method of claim 1, wherein the terminal environment- controlling instruction is selectively provided in response to the received category of interest (Yadav: figure 2, i.e., exemplary user interface is displayed for “Histories”; ¶ 0030, i.e., “User device interface 152 generally provides the interface to facility engine 150 for user devices 105A, 105B, . . . , 105n (e.g., via backend interface 128 of electronic medical records application 120)”; ¶ 0038, i.e., “components 201A, 201B, 201C, . . . , 201n and components 202A, 202B, 202C, . . . , 202n are navigational components that, when selected, navigate the electronic medical records application to a corresponding component of an electronic medical record”).
Regarding (original) claim 43, Yadav and Raduchel teach the method of claim 42, wherein the terminal environment- controlling instruction is selectively provided in response to information on the topic of interest input at the time intervals (Yadav: figure 2, i.e., exemplary user interface is displayed for “Histories” of “Family” based on input of “Family Member Information”; ¶ 0030; ¶ 0038).
Regarding (currently amended) claim 44, Yadav, Raduchel, and White teach the method of claim 1, wherein the terminal environment- controlling instruction is provided in response to the received category of interest (Yadav: figure 2, i.e., exemplary user interface is displayed for “Histories”; ¶ 0030, i.e., “User device interface 152 generally provides the interface to facility engine 150 for user devices 105A, 105B, . . . , 105n (e.g., via backend interface 128 of electronic medical records application 120)”; ¶ 0038, i.e., “components 201A, 201B, 201C, . . . , 201n and components 202A, 202B, 202C, . . . , 202n are navigational components that, when selected, navigate the electronic medical records application to a corresponding component of an electronic medical record”) and the MIR edition (White: ¶ 0021).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Yadav, Raduchel, and White are discussed in the rejection of claim 6, and incorporated herein.
Regarding (original) claim 45, Yadav and Raduchel teach the method of claim 1, wherein the information editing module is a control command and/or an application to utilize a text input module (Raduchel: ¶ 0118), an image generating module (or a drawing module), a touch input module, a camera, a microphone, a location recognition module (or a GPS module) and/or a sensor module for recording information in the terminal of the membershiped information provider.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Yadav and Raduchel are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Regarding (currently amended) claim 46, Yadav and Raduchel teach the method of claim 1, wherein the information sharing setting module receives information to determine
(i) a range of a membershiped user in the MIR server to whom the MIR is accessible (Raduchel: ¶ 0120); and/or
(ii) the MIR to be accessible to the membershiped user in the MIR server and/or a range of information in the MIR to be accessible to the membershiped user.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Yadav and Raduchel are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Regarding (original) claim 47, Yadav and Raduchel teach the method of claim 1.
Yet, Yadav and Raduchel do not explicitly teach, but White teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein an edition is assigned to at least two or more of the plurality of time-series information received in the time-series manner to generate a plurality of MIR editions (White: figure 1, i.e., the “User account” 34 includes an “Original version” 40 and an “Updated version” 62; ¶ 0011, i.e., “The healthcare record item 38 may include a plurality of data elements 44 configured to hold various types of health information”; ¶ 0015), the plurality of MIR editions each includes meta information (White: ¶ 0011, i.e., “the healthcare record item 38 may include a digital signature 46 of the content supplier 42 that is associated with digitally signed data 48 in the healthcare record item 38”) and the plurality of MIR editions are incorporated in the MIR (White: figure 1, i.e., the “User account” 34 includes an “Original version” 40 and an “Updated version” 62; ¶ 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include wherein an edition is assigned to at least two or more of the plurality of time-series information received in the time-series manner to generate a plurality of MIR editions, the plurality of MIR editions each includes meta information and the plurality of MIR editions are incorporated in the MIR, as taught by White, with the system of Yadav and Raduchel, with the motivation to “enable a user to retain the ability to edit user healthcare records in a user account of an online health information management system, while also providing a content recipient of the user healthcare records a mechanism for verifying the provenance of the data contained in the user healthcare records as originating from a specified content supplier” (White: ¶ 0038).
Regarding (currently amended) claim 48, Yadav, Raduchel, and White teach the method of claim 1, wherein the MIR server selects the information record sheet depending on the information on the topic of interest input at the time intervals or the edition assigned to the MIR edition and then provides the selected information record sheet to the terminal of the membershiped information provider (Yadav: figure 2, i.e., exemplary user interface is displayed for “Histories”; ¶ 0030, i.e., “User device interface 152 generally provides the interface to facility engine 150 for user devices 105A, 105B, . . . , 105n (e.g., via backend interface 128 of electronic medical records application 120)”; ¶ 0038, i.e., “components 201A, 201B, 201C, . . . , 201n and components 202A, 202B, 202C, . . . , 202n are navigational components that, when selected, navigate the electronic medical records application to a corresponding component of an electronic medical record”).
Regarding (currently amended) claim 50, Yadav teaches a computing device for generating a membershiped information record sheet in a membership-led information record (MIR) server (Yadav: ¶ 0037; ¶ 0044-0045; ¶ 0050), the computing device comprising:
a memory configured to store at least one instruction (Yadav: ¶ 0037; ¶ 0044-0045; ¶ 0050); and
a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor (Yadav: ¶ 0037; ¶ 0044-0045; ¶ 0050) to
(a) receive, by the MIR server, log on information from a terminal of a membershiped information provider in which a MIR application is executed and validating the membershiped information provider, wherein the membershiped information provider is registered as a member in the MIR application (Yadav: ¶ 0017-0019);
(b) receive a category of interest corresponding to a topic of interest of the membershiped information provider (Yadav: figure 2, i.e., exemplary user interface is displayed for “Histories” including “Family”; ¶ 0038, i.e., “components 201A, 201B, 201C, . . . , 201n and components 202A, 202B, 202C, . . . , 202n are navigational components that, when selected, navigate the electronic medical records application to a corresponding component of an electronic medical record”);
(c) provide a terminal environment-controlling instruction to the terminal of the membershiped information provider to input information on the topic of interest of the membershiped information provider (Yadav: ¶ 0030, i.e., “User device interface 152 generally provides the interface to facility engine 150 for user devices 105A, 105B, . . . , 105n (e.g., via backend interface 128 of electronic medical records application 120)”; ¶ 0038, i.e., “The Family History component user interface 200 includes inputs 225 and 226 for adding and modifying family member information 220”)…;
Yet, Yadav does not explicitly teach, but Raduchel teaches, in the same field of endeavor,
…wherein the terminal environment-controlling instruction (Raduchel: ¶ 0114, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood “the user interface 600 for adding a record” of Raduchel as the “user interface 200…for adding and modifying family member information 220” of Yadav, which Examiner interprets as the claimed terminal environment-controlling instruction) includes an information editing module, an information sharing-range setting module, and an information record sheet that is used in the terminal of the membershiped information provider (Raduchel: ¶ 0114-0121);
(d) receive time-series information, which is information on the topic of interest input through the MIR application, in a time-series manner, wherein the time-series information is generated by inputting information on the topic of interest at least twice at time intervals (Raduchel: figure 6, i.e., user interface receives “Record Information” on the “Category” “Orthopedic”; ¶ 0118; ¶ 0132, i.e., “electronic medical records information 715, 725, and 735 received”); and
(e) generate MIR using the time series information (Raduchel: ¶ 0131, i.e., “aggregates the electronic medical record information into a complete set of medical records for John Smith”)…, wherein the MIR is tracked by a tracking module of the MIR server (Raduchel: figure 7, i.e., each record is tracked by an associated date; ¶ 0124, i.e., Examiner interprets Raduchel to teach the claimed tracking module because “tracking module” is a non-functional label and Raduchel teaches “instructions executed by the processor in performing the described processes,” which performs the functions of the claimed tracking module)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include wherein the terminal environment-controlling instruction includes an information editing module, an information sharing-range setting module, and an information record sheet that is used in the terminal of the membershiped information provider; (d) receiving time-series information, which is information on the topic of interest input through the MIR application, in a time-series manner, wherein the time-series information is generated by inputting information on the topic of interest at least twice at time intervals; and (e) generating MIR using the time series information, wherein the MIR is tracked by a tracking module of the MIR server, as taught by Raduchel, within the system of Yadav, with the motivation for “the medical service provider is able to make a complete review of the relevant medical records and is able to access the relevant medical records in a timely manner” (Raduchel: ¶ 0039).
Yet, Yadav and Raduchel do not explicitly teach, but White teaches, in the same field of endeavor,
…wherein the MIR is an edited information record (White: ¶ 0015, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “updated version 62 of the healthcare record item 38” of White as the “complete set of medical records” of Raduchel, which Examiner interprets as the claimed MIR)…wherein the edited information record includes a plurality of MIR editions in which an edition is assigned to each of the MIR editions (White: figure 1, i.e., the “User account” 34 includes an “Original version” 40 and an “Updated version” 62; ¶ 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include wherein the MIR is an edited information record, wherein the edited information record includes a plurality of MIR editions in which an edition is assigned to each of the MIR editions, as taught by White, with the system of Yadav and Raduchel, with the motivation to “enable a user to retain the ability to edit user healthcare records in a user account of an online health information management system, while also providing a content recipient of the user healthcare records a mechanism for verifying the provenance of the data contained in the user healthcare records as originating from a specified content supplier” (White: ¶ 0038).
Regarding (original) claim 51, Yadav teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer executable instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method for generating a membershiped information record sheet in a membership-led information record (MIR) server (Yadav: ¶ 0037; ¶ 0044-0045; ¶ 0050), the method comprising:
(a) receiving, by the MIR server, log on information from a terminal of a membershiped information provider in which a MIR application is executed and validating the membershiped information provider, wherein the membershiped information provider is registered as a member in the MIR application (Yadav: ¶ 0017-0019);
(b) receiving a category of interest corresponding to a topic of interest of the membershiped information provider (Yadav: figure 2, i.e., exemplary user interface is displayed for “Histories” including “Family”; ¶ 0038, i.e., “components 201A, 201B, 201C, . . . , 201n and components 202A, 202B, 202C, . . . , 202n are navigational components that, when selected, navigate the electronic medical records application to a corresponding component of an electronic medical record”);
(c) providing a terminal environment-controlling instruction to the terminal of the membershiped information provider to input information on the topic of interest of the membershiped information provider (Yadav: ¶ 0030, i.e., “User device interface 152 generally provides the interface to facility engine 150 for user devices 105A, 105B, . . . , 105n (e.g., via backend interface 128 of electronic medical records application 120)”; ¶ 0038, i.e., “The Family History component user interface 200 includes inputs 225 and 226 for adding and modifying family member information 220”)…
Yet, Yadav does not explicitly teach, but Raduchel teaches, in the same field of endeavor,
…wherein the terminal environment-controlling instruction (Raduchel: ¶ 0114, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood “the user interface 600 for adding a record” of Raduchel as the “user interface 200…for adding and modifying family member information 220” of Yadav, which Examiner interprets as the claimed terminal environment-controlling instruction) includes an information editing module, an information sharing-range setting module, and an information record sheet that is used in the terminal of the membershiped information provider (Raduchel: ¶ 0114-0121);
(d) receiving time-series information, which is information on the topic of interest input through the MIR application, in a time-series manner, wherein the time-series information is generated by inputting information on the topic of interest at least twice at time intervals (Raduchel: figure 6, i.e., user interface receives “Record Information” on the “Category” “Orthopedic”; ¶ 0118; ¶ 0132, i.e., “electronic medical records information 715, 725, and 735 received”); and
(e) generating MIR using the time series information (Raduchel: ¶ 0131, i.e., “aggregates the electronic medical record information into a complete set of medical records for John Smith”)…, wherein the MIR is tracked by a tracking module of the MIR server (Raduchel: figure 7, i.e., each record is tracked by an associated date; ¶ 0124, i.e., Examiner interprets Raduchel to teach the claimed tracking module because “tracking module” is a non-functional label and Raduchel teaches “instructions executed by the processor in performing the described processes,” which performs the functions of the claimed tracking module)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include wherein the terminal environment-controlling instruction includes an information editing module, an information sharing-range setting module, and an information record sheet that is used in the terminal of the membershiped information provider; (d) receiving time-series information, which is information on the topic of interest input through the MIR application, in a time-series manner, wherein the time-series information is generated by inputting information on the topic of interest at least twice at time intervals; and (e) generating MIR using the time series information, wherein the MIR is tracked by a tracking module of the MIR server, as taught by Raduchel, within the system of Yadav, with the motivation for “the medical service provider is able to make a complete review of the relevant medical records and is able to access the relevant medical records in a timely manner” (Raduchel: ¶ 0039).
Yet, Yadav and Raduchel do not explicitly teach, but White teaches, in the same field of endeavor,
…wherein the MIR is an edited information record (White: ¶ 0015, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “updated version 62 of the healthcare record item 38” of White as the “complete set of medical records” of Raduchel, which Examiner interprets as the claimed MIR)…wherein the edited information record includes a plurality of MIR editions in which an edition is assigned to each of the MIR editions (White: figure 1, i.e., the “User account” 34 includes an “Original version” 40 and an “Updated version” 62; ¶ 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include wherein the MIR is an edited information record, wherein the edited information record includes a plurality of MIR editions in which an edition is assigned to each of the MIR editions, as taught by White, with the system of Yadav and Raduchel, with the motivation to “enable a user to retain the ability to edit user healthcare records in a user account of an online health information management system, while also providing a content recipient of the user healthcare records a mechanism for verifying the provenance of the data contained in the user healthcare records as originating from a specified content supplier” (White: ¶ 0038).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 01/20/2026.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that:
Regarding the 101 rejections,
“The membershiped-information provider directly sets the sharing of an MIR generated by the MIR server, and the MIR server manages sharing in accordance with the set sharing range. Such sharing management does not constitute a "certain method of organizing human activity" because the MIR server performs a real-time comparison and determination between the sharing privileges of other membershiped-information providers accessing the MIR server and the sharing range set for the generated MIR, thereby restricting access to the MIR. This is not a human activity but a technical, machine-executed access-control procedure”; and
“Claims 1 and 50-51 recite MIR editions, which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Setting an edition for a generated MIR does not constitute an "abstract idea" nor a "certain method of organizing human activity." The processes of generating an MIR by receiving at least two chronological information entries via an MIR server and setting an edition for the generated record provide a significant improvement in information record creation. Importantly, as discussed in the § 103 rejection below, the feature of the MIR editions is not performed by conventional computing devices. Accordingly, claims 1 and 50-51 provide a technical improvement of enabling verification of chronological development history for interest information generated as an MIR over the cited references.”
Regarding the 103 rejections, the cited prior art reference(s) fails to teach the amended claim limitations because “White describes updating an original healthcare record by adding additional information thereto. (White, para. [0002].) In other words, multiple pieces of information are added to an original healthcare record to update the same record. The updated content does not have chronological significance. Further, White does not describe setting at least two chronological healthcare records as an edition…This exemplifies the continuous updating of an original healthcare record, rather than individual editions. Similarly, the electronic medical records (EMRs) in Raduchel do not constitute a single complete record. Rather, they are records generated by multiple healthcare institutions each time a patient visits for a symptom…without generating a new information record based on those EMRs.”
Regarding the 103 rejections, the cited prior art reference(s) fails to teach the amended claim limitations because “Yadav's authorized users are medical professionals (e.g., clinicians) with access to EMRs who create records on behalf of patients and only within a hospital network. (Yadav, para. [0017]-[0019].) Yadav therefore lacks any disclosure of an individual user generating their own information record on their own device.”
Regarding the 103 rejections, the cited prior art reference(s) fails to teach the amended claim limitations because “In contrast, the categories in Yadav are standardized and predefined categories that cannot be freely created by users, and are intended to classify information such as family history or surgical history for cancer patients… the information entered in each category is not chronological information, nor is it MIR information generated using information input at least twice. Yadav merely records histories of unique actions (e.g., creation, access, editing) performed by multiple users on EMR data within each category.”
Regarding the 103 rejections, the cited prior art reference(s) fails to teach the amended claim limitations because “In contrast, Raduchel describes a configuration for providing EMRs recorded by healthcare providers to a patient's electronic device (130), not for allowing the patient to record information themselves. Further, the user devices in Yadav are devices of medical professionals and not personal terminals of users. Additionally, the user devices in Yadav merely access EMRs for recording patient medical information… In contrast, EMRs in Raduchel are generally shared among medical professionals within a hospital, and do not allow sharing conditions to be set for individual EMR data items. (Raduchel, para. [0145].) Furthermore, sharing in Raduchel involves sharing EMRs added to a Patient Safety Organization (PSO) database among multiple data providers. (Id., para. [0108].) Accordingly, the sharing mechanisms recited in claims 1 and 50-51 and Raduchel are fundamentally different, and the creation-based sharing control recited in claims 1 and 50-51 is entirely absent in Raduchel.”
It is respectfully submitted that Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments and does not find them persuasive. Examiner has attempted to address all of the arguments presented by Applicant; however, any arguments inadvertently not addressed are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
In response to Applicant’s argument that (a) regarding the 112 rejections associated with the 112(f) claim interpretation, the amendments overcome the rejections:
It is respectfully submitted that Examiner withdraws the aforementioned 112(a) and 112(b) rejections associated with the 112(f) claim interpretation of claims 1-19 of Office Action dated 10/14/2025 because the amendments have rendered the rejections moot.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (b) regarding the 101 rejections,
“The membershiped-information provider directly sets the sharing of an MIR generated by the MIR server, and the MIR server manages sharing in accordance with the set sharing range. Such sharing management does not constitute a "certain method of organizing human activity" because the MIR server performs a real-time comparison and determination between the sharing privileges of other membershiped-information providers accessing the MIR server and the sharing range set for the generated MIR, thereby restricting access to the MIR. This is not a human activity but a technical, machine-executed access-control procedure”:
It is respectfully submitted that per broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification, the claims of the present invention encompass the activity of (to paraphrase) rules or instructions to collect data and generate a record based on the collected data for a user, which covers the sub-grouping of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Put another way, the claimed invention amounts to a series of rules or steps that a user would follow to provide data about a topic of interest and aggregate relevant data to create a record. This is an abstract idea.
Applicant argues “Such sharing management does not constitute a "certain method of organizing human activity" because the MIR server performs a real-time comparison and determination between the sharing privileges of other membershiped-information providers accessing the MIR server and the sharing range set for the generated MIR, thereby restricting access to the MIR. This is not a human activity but a technical, machine-executed access-control procedure.” However, Applicant fails to specify how “a real-time comparison and determination between the sharing privileges of other membershiped-information providers accessing the MIR server and the sharing range set for the generated MIR, thereby restricting access to the MIR… is not a human activity,” especially when “a real-time comparison and determination between the sharing privileges of other membershiped-information providers accessing the MIR server and the sharing range set for the generated MIR” describes rules or instructions to collect data and generate a record based on the collected data for a user, which is the abstract idea of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “The membershiped-information provider directly sets the sharing of an MIR generated by the MIR server, and the MIR server manages sharing in accordance with the set sharing range”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The server and terminal having “an information sharing-range setting module” is described at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually.
Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
“Claims 1 and 50-51 recite MIR editions, which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Setting an edition for a generated MIR does not constitute an "abstract idea" nor a "certain method of organizing human activity." The processes of generating an MIR by receiving at least two chronological information entries via an MIR server and setting an edition for the generated record provide a significant improvement in information record creation. Importantly, as discussed in the § 103 rejection below, the feature of the MIR editions is not performed by conventional computing devices. Accordingly, claims 1 and 50-51 provide a technical improvement of enabling verification of chronological development history for interest information generated as an MIR over the cited references”:
Applicant argues “MIR editions, which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Setting an edition for a generated MIR does not constitute an "abstract idea" nor a "certain method of organizing human activity."” However, Applicant fails to specify how “MIR editions…amount to significantly more” or how “Setting an edition for a generated MIR does not constitute an "abstract idea" nor a "certain method of organizing human activity."” Regardless, the claim limitations to which Applicant seem to refer are interpreted as rules or instructions to collect data and generate a record based on the collected data for a user, but for the recitation of generic computer components, which is the abstract idea, and not additional elements to be interpreted in Step 2B.
Applicant argues “The processes of generating an MIR by receiving at least two chronological information entries via an MIR server and setting an edition for the generated record provide a significant improvement in information record creation… claims 1 and 50-51 provide a technical improvement of enabling verification of chronological development history for interest information generated as an MIR over the cited references.” However, “information record creation” and “verification of chronological development history for interest information generated as an MIR” addresses administrative problems, and not a technical problem to any specific devices, technology, or computers for that matter, and thus, the claims do not provide a technical solution. For example, the computing system did not cause the argued problem and thus it is not a technical problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined. Even if the claims provide the alleged improvements, any alleged benefits of the invention are at best, an improvement to the abstract idea of rules or instructions to collect data and generate a record based on the collected data for a user. However, an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea and the claims do not provide a technical improvement.
Applicant argues “as discussed in the § 103 rejection below, the feature of the MIR editions is not performed by conventional computing devices. Accordingly, claims 1 and 50-51 provide a technical improvement of enabling verification of chronological development history for interest information generated as an MIR over the cited references.” However, per MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A), evaluating whether a claim limitation is “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is not a standalone test for determining eligibility, but only one consideration “For Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Amount To An Inventive Concept.” Furthermore, per MPEP § 2106.05(I): “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination…As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter…a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty…Because [novelty and obviousness] are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.”
Thus, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Reevaluated under step 2B, the additional elements noted above do not provide “significantly more” when taken either individually or as an ordered combination. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, Examiner maintains the 101 rejections of claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 14-15, 19-23, 42-48, 50-51, which have been updated to address Applicant’s remarks and to comply with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence in the above Office Action.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (b) regarding the 103 rejections, the cited prior art reference(s) fails to teach the amended claim limitations because “White describes updating an original healthcare record by adding additional information thereto. (White, para. [0002].) In other words, multiple pieces of information are added to an original healthcare record to update the same record. The updated content does not have chronological significance. Further, White does not describe setting at least two chronological healthcare records as an edition…This exemplifies the continuous updating of an original healthcare record, rather than individual editions. Similarly, the electronic medical records (EMRs) in Raduchel do not constitute a single complete record. Rather, they are records generated by multiple healthcare institutions each time a patient visits for a symptom…without generating a new information record based on those EMRs”:
It is respectfully submitted that Applicant argues “The updated content does not have chronological significance. Further, White does not describe setting at least two chronological healthcare records as an edition.” However, Examiner does not rely on White to teach the claim limitations to which Applicant seem to refer (i.e., “receiving time-series information, which is information on the topic of interest input through the MIR application, in a time-series manner, wherein the time-series information is generated by inputting information on the topic of interest at least twice at time intervals”). White teaches the claim limitations of “wherein the MIR is an edited information record,” which under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “updated version 62 of the healthcare record item 38” of White as the “complete set of medical records” of Raduchel, which Examiner interprets as the claimed MIR (White: ¶ 0015). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues “This exemplifies the continuous updating of an original healthcare record, rather than individual editions.” However, per broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, an updated record is another version, or edition, of the record.
Applicant argues “the electronic medical records (EMRs) in Raduchel do not constitute a single complete record. Rather, they are records generated by multiple healthcare institutions each time a patient visits for a symptom…without generating a new information record based on those EMRs.” However, Raduchel describes “a complete set of medical records for John Smith” (Raduchel: figure 7, i.e., a new record of the aggregated information is displayed 750; ¶ 0131), which teaches the claimed “[generated] MIR” of the present invention.
The analogous independent claims and the remaining dependent claims have been taught by the applied/recited passages and citations, as addressed in the above Office Action. Thus, the cited prior art references teach the aforementioned amended claim limitations.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (c) regarding the 103 rejections, the cited prior art reference(s) fails to teach the amended claim limitations because “Yadav's authorized users are medical professionals (e.g., clinicians) with access to EMRs who create records on behalf of patients and only within a hospital network. (Yadav, para. [0017]-[0019].) Yadav therefore lacks any disclosure of an individual user generating their own information record on their own device”:
It is respectfully submitted that Applicant argues “The updated content does not have chronological significance. Further, White does not describe setting at least two chronological healthcare records as an edition.” However, Applicant fails to specify how “medical professionals (e.g., clinicians)… who create records” do not teach “an individual user generating their own information record on their own device.” Per broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, a medical professional (i.e., clinician) creating records on a device is “an individual user generating their own information record on their own device.”
The analogous independent claims and the remaining dependent claims have been taught by the applied/recited passages and citations, as addressed in the above Office Action. Thus, the cited prior art references teach the aforementioned amended claim limitations.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (d) regarding the 103 rejections, the cited prior art reference(s) fails to teach the amended claim limitations because “In contrast, the categories in Yadav are standardized and predefined categories that cannot be freely created by users, and are intended to classify information such as family history or surgical history for cancer patients… the information entered in each category is not chronological information, nor is it MIR information generated using information input at least twice. Yadav merely records histories of unique actions (e.g., creation, access, editing) performed by multiple users on EMR data within each category”:
It is respectfully submitted that Applicant argues “The updated content does not have chronological significance. Further, White does not describe setting at least two chronological healthcare records as an edition.” However, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “categories” must “be freely created by users”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues “the information entered in each category is not chronological information, nor is it MIR information generated using information input at least twice. Yadav merely records histories of unique actions (e.g., creation, access, editing) performed by multiple users on EMR data within each category.” However, Examiner does not rely on Yadav, but Raduchel, to teach the claim limitations to which Applicant seem to refer (i.e., “receiving time-series information, which is information on the topic of interest input through the MIR application, in a time-series manner, wherein the time-series information is generated by inputting information on the topic of interest at least twice at time intervals”).
The analogous independent claims and the remaining dependent claims have been taught by the applied/recited passages and citations, as addressed in the above Office Action. Thus, the cited prior art references teach the aforementioned amended claim limitations.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (e) regarding the 103 rejections, the cited prior art reference(s) fails to teach the amended claim limitations because “In contrast, Raduchel describes a configuration for providing EMRs recorded by healthcare providers to a patient's electronic device (130), not for allowing the patient to record information themselves. Further, the user devices in Yadav are devices of medical professionals and not personal terminals of users. Additionally, the user devices in Yadav merely access EMRs for recording patient medical information… In contrast, EMRs in Raduchel are generally shared among medical professionals within a hospital, and do not allow sharing conditions to be set for individual EMR data items. (Raduchel, para. [0145].) Furthermore, sharing in Raduchel involves sharing EMRs added to a Patient Safety Organization (PSO) database among multiple data providers. (Id., para. [0108].) Accordingly, the sharing mechanisms recited in claims 1 and 50-51 and Raduchel are fundamentally different, and the creation-based sharing control recited in claims 1 and 50-51 is entirely absent in Raduchel”:
It is respectfully submitted that Applicant argues “Raduchel describes a configuration for providing EMRs recorded by healthcare providers to a patient's electronic device (130), not for allowing the patient to record information themselves. Further, the user devices in Yadav are devices of medical professionals and not personal terminals of users.” However, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “allowing the patient to record information themselves”; “the user devices” must be “personal terminals of users”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues “EMRs in Raduchel are generally shared among medical professionals within a hospital, and do not allow sharing conditions to be set for individual EMR data items. (Raduchel, para. [0145].) Furthermore, sharing in Raduchel involves sharing EMRs added to a Patient Safety Organization (PSO) database among multiple data providers. (Id., para. [0108].) Accordingly, the sharing mechanisms recited in claims 1 and 50-51 and Raduchel are fundamentally different, and the creation-based sharing control recited in claims 1 and 50-51 is entirely absent in Raduchel.” However, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “sharing conditions to be set for individual EMR data items”; “creation-based sharing control”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The analogous independent claims and the remaining dependent claims have been taught by the applied/recited passages and citations, as addressed in the above Office Action. Thus, the cited prior art references teach the aforementioned amended claim limitations.
Conclusion
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-8317. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-5 PM.
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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/EMILY HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683