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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/12/2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 08/12/2026. Claims 1, 5, 50-51 have been amended. Claim 4 has been canceled. Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 14-15, 19-23, 42-48, 50-51 are presented for examination.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8, 14-15, 19-23, 42-48, 50-51 are allowable over prior art because the prior art of record fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims, in particular: “generating MIR using the time series information, 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, wherein the MIR is tracked by a tracking module of the MIR server, wherein the tracking provides a development history of the MIR from a perspective of the time-series manner, wherein the development history includes a modification history of information on the topic of interest, and the modification history includes changes to the information on the topic of interest included in the MIR, a number of changes to the information on the topic of interest, and a date and time of the changes to the information on the topic of interest, and wherein the MIR includes an index associated with each of the plurality of MIR editions to provide traceability of the plurality of MIR editions.” Because the prior art does not teach or disclose the above features in the specific manner and combinations recited in independent claims 1, 50-51, claims 1, 50-51 is hereby deemed to be allowable over prior art. Originally numbered dependent claims 2, 5, 8, 14-15, 19-23, 42- 48 incorporate the allowable features of originally numbered independent claim 1 through dependency.
However, the claims are still rejected under 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 14-15, 19-23, 42-48, 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, 50-51 recites “the tracking” in line 25 (claim 1) and line 1 (claim 8). However, it is unclear if “the tracking” refers to the previously recited “tracking module of the MIR server”; or if “the tracking” further describes the previously recited wherein clause of “wherein the MIR is tracked by a tracking module of the MIR server.” Appropriate clarification is requested for the proper interpretation of the claim limitations, as the ambiguity renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets “wherein the MIR is tracked by a tracking module of the MIR server, wherein the tracking provides a development history of the MIR from a perspective of the time-series manner” as: “wherein a tracking module of the MIR server provides a development history of the MIR from a perspective of the time-series manner.”
Claims 2, 5, 8, 14-15, 19-23, 42-48 is/are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 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 edited information record includes a plurality of MIR editions in which edition is assigned to each of the MIR editions, wherein the MIR is tracked..., wherein the tracking provides a development history of the MIR from a perspective of the time-series manner, wherein the development history includes a modification history of information on the topic of interest, and the modification history includes changes to the information on the topic of interest included in the MIR, a number of changes to the information on the topic of interest, and a date and time of the changes to the information on the topic of interest, and wherein the MIR includes an index associated with each of the plurality of MIR editions to provide traceability of the plurality of 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. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to collect data and generate a record based on the collected data for a user (i.e., doctor) accordingly in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps as indicated supra. That is, other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), the claim amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people following rules or instructions. 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, 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, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2026 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 08/12/2026.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that:
Regarding the 101 rejections,
“the tracking recited in the claims is not merely an arrangement of multiple pieces of information according to dates. Rather, it constitutes server-based history management processing that correlates indexes associated with respective MIR editions, modification contents, numbers of modifications, and modification dates and times, thereby enabling the creation and modification flow of a plurality of MIR editions to be tracked…the tracking module does not merely provide final information. Rather, it enables tracking of how information relating to a topic of interest evolved through various modification stages during generation of multiple MIR editions by associating such modification stages with edition-specific indexes. Accordingly, the development history is not merely supplemental information presented to a user. Instead, it forms part of an MIR data structure used by the MIR server to distinguish a plurality of MIR editions and track modifications associated with each edition…the MIR includes an index associated with each MIR edition and is specifically configured so that the index provides information traceability for the plurality of MIR editions. Thus, the index is not merely a label indicating that multiple editions exist. Further, each index corresponds to a respective MIR edition and enables identification and tracking of which MIR edition is associated with the modification contents, number of modifications, and modification dates and times included in the development history. Through this individualized association between indexes and MIR editions, the MIR server can distinguish different MIR editions and provide edition-specific modification histories in a time-series manner…each of the claim as a whole is directed not merely to record versioning or information display, but to a specific MIR architecture and server processing mechanism enabling traceability of multiple MIR editions through edition-specific indexes and modification histories”; and
“the modification history includes modification contents, a number of modifications, and dates and times of modifications. Each index is associated with a respective MIR edition and the indexes associated with the respective MIR editions provide information traceability for the plurality of MIR editions. These features are used together by the tracking module to provide a time-series development history. Therefore, the additional limitations are not merely an aggregation of unrelated data fields presented in parallel. Each limitation cooperates with the other limitations to track the modification flow of the MIR editions, and their combination specifically defines the tracking operation of the MIR server. The Office has not established, with factual support, that the recited ordered combination constitutes well-understood, routine, and conventional activities…by combining the identification of each edition with its modification history within the MIR server, the claims enable tracking of an edition-specific creation and modification flow that cannot be identified from the final MIR alone.”
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 101 rejections,
“the tracking recited in the claims is not merely an arrangement of multiple pieces of information according to dates. Rather, it constitutes server-based history management processing that correlates indexes associated with respective MIR editions, modification contents, numbers of modifications, and modification dates and times, thereby enabling the creation and modification flow of a plurality of MIR editions to be tracked…the tracking module does not merely provide final information. Rather, it enables tracking of how information relating to a topic of interest evolved through various modification stages during generation of multiple MIR editions by associating such modification stages with edition-specific indexes. Accordingly, the development history is not merely supplemental information presented to a user. Instead, it forms part of an MIR data structure used by the MIR server to distinguish a plurality of MIR editions and track modifications associated with each edition…the MIR includes an index associated with each MIR edition and is specifically configured so that the index provides information traceability for the plurality of MIR editions. Thus, the index is not merely a label indicating that multiple editions exist. Further, each index corresponds to a respective MIR edition and enables identification and tracking of which MIR edition is associated with the modification contents, number of modifications, and modification dates and times included in the development history. Through this individualized association between indexes and MIR editions, the MIR server can distinguish different MIR editions and provide edition-specific modification histories in a time-series manner…each of the claim as a whole is directed not merely to record versioning or information display, but to a specific MIR architecture and server processing mechanism enabling traceability of multiple MIR editions through edition-specific indexes and modification histories”:
It is respectfully submitted that Applicant argues “the tracking recited in the claims is not merely an arrangement of multiple pieces of information according to dates. Rather, it constitutes server-based history management processing that correlates indexes associated with respective MIR editions, modification contents, numbers of modifications, and modification dates and times, thereby enabling the creation and modification flow of a plurality of MIR editions to be tracked…the tracking module does not merely provide final information. Rather, it enables tracking of how information relating to a topic of interest evolved through various modification stages during generation of multiple MIR editions by associating such modification stages with edition-specific indexes. Accordingly, the development history is not merely supplemental information presented to a user. Instead, it forms part of an MIR data structure used by the MIR server to distinguish a plurality of MIR editions and track modifications associated with each edition…the MIR includes an index associated with each MIR edition and is specifically configured so that the index provides information traceability for the plurality of MIR editions. Thus, the index is not merely a label indicating that multiple editions exist. Further, each index corresponds to a respective MIR edition and enables identification and tracking of which MIR edition is associated with the modification contents, number of modifications, and modification dates and times included in the development history. Through this individualized association between indexes and MIR editions, the MIR server can distinguish different MIR editions and provide edition-specific modification histories in a time-series manner…each of the claim as a whole is directed not merely to record versioning or information display, but to a specific MIR architecture and server processing mechanism enabling traceability of multiple MIR editions through edition-specific indexes and modification histories.” However, the claim limitations to which Applicant seem to refer (i.e., “wherein the edited information record includes a plurality of MIR editions in which edition is assigned to each of the MIR editions, wherein the MIR is tracked..., wherein the tracking provides a development history of the MIR from a perspective of the time-series manner, wherein the development history includes a modification history of information on the topic of interest, and the modification history includes changes to the information on the topic of interest included in the MIR, a number of changes to the information on the topic of interest, and a date and time of the changes to the information on the topic of interest, and wherein the MIR includes an index associated with each of the plurality of MIR editions to provide traceability of the plurality of MIR editions”) are interpreted as rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to collect data and generate a record based on the collected data for a user (i.e., doctor) accordingly in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra., but for the recitation of generic computer components, which is the abstract idea, and not additional elements to be interpreted in Step 2A, Prong Two. A server having modules 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.
Furthermore, “enabling the creation and modification flow of a plurality of MIR editions to be tracked,” “enables tracking of how information relating to a topic of interest evolved through various modification stages during generation of multiple MIR editions,” “enables identification and tracking of which MIR edition is associated with the modification contents, number of modifications, and modification dates and times included in the development history,” and “enabling traceability of multiple MIR editions” addresses administrative problems, and not a technical problem to any specific devices, technology, or computers (i.e., servers) 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.
Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
“the modification history includes modification contents, a number of modifications, and dates and times of modifications. Each index is associated with a respective MIR edition and the indexes associated with the respective MIR editions provide information traceability for the plurality of MIR editions. These features are used together by the tracking module to provide a time-series development history. Therefore, the additional limitations are not merely an aggregation of unrelated data fields presented in parallel. Each limitation cooperates with the other limitations to track the modification flow of the MIR editions, and their combination specifically defines the tracking operation of the MIR server. The Office has not established, with factual support, that the recited ordered combination constitutes well-understood, routine, and conventional activities…by combining the identification of each edition with its modification history within the MIR server, the claims enable tracking of an edition-specific creation and modification flow that cannot be identified from the final MIR alone”:
Applicant argues “the modification history includes modification contents, a number of modifications, and dates and times of modifications. Each index is associated with a respective MIR edition and the indexes associated with the respective MIR editions provide information traceability for the plurality of MIR editions. These features are used together by the tracking module to provide a time-series development history. Therefore, the additional limitations are not merely an aggregation of unrelated data fields presented in parallel. Each limitation cooperates with the other limitations to track the modification flow of the MIR editions, and their combination specifically defines the tracking operation of the MIR server.” However, the claim limitations to which Applicant seem to refer as “the modification history includes modification contents, a number of modifications, and dates and times of modifications. Each index is associated with a respective MIR edition and the indexes associated with the respective MIR editions provide information traceability for the plurality of MIR editions. These features are used together by the tracking module to provide a time-series development history” are interpreted as rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to collect data and generate a record based on the collected data for a user (i.e., doctor) accordingly in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra., but for the recitation of generic computer components, which is the abstract idea, and not additional elements to be interpreted in Step 2B. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually.
Applicant argues “The Office has not established, with factual support, that the recited ordered combination constitutes well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.” However, Examiner did not assert “that the recited ordered combination constitutes well-understood, routine, and conventional activities” in Office Action dated 08/12/2026 or above, and thus, no evidence per Berkheimer is required. As stated previously above, only 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).
Applicant argues “by combining the identification of each edition with its modification history within the MIR server, the claims enable tracking of an edition-specific creation and modification flow that cannot be identified from the final MIR alone.” However, Applicant fails to specify how “tracking of an edition-specific creation and modification flow that cannot be identified from the final MIR alone” amounts to significantly more. Regardless, the claim limitations to which Applicant seem to refer as “i. receiving information relating to the same topic of interest at least twice at time intervals; ii. generating an MIR, which is an edited information record, using the time- series information; iii. forming a plurality of MIR editions within the MIR and assigning an edition to each MIR edition; iv. providing…a development history of the MIR in a time- series manner; v. including, in the development history, modification contents, a number of modifications, and dates and times of modifications for the respective editions; and vi. including, in the MIR, an index associated with each MIR edition to provide information traceability for the plurality of MIR editions” are interpreted as rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to collect data and generate a record based on the collected data for a user (i.e., doctor) accordingly in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra., but for the recitation of generic computer components, which is the abstract idea, and not additional elements to be interpreted in Step 2B. A server having modules 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.
As stated previously above, 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.
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, 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights