DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 26, 2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner is sending a second non-final because independent claims 1 and 9 prior art mappings for limitation that states " receiving at a computer, from multiple vendors of digital event records, records of digital events by users of the internet, digital event records identifying respective digital IDs of respective users that initiated the respective digital events; and inferring likely correlations between digital IDs of initiating users of the digital event records with identities of specific persons of the professional records, by identifying correlations among data of the digital event records and data of the professional records, the likelihood of the inference computed as a parameter reflecting a degree of certainty of the inference" is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon et al. (US 2015/0347705) (hereinafter Simon) and O’Keefe et al. (US 11,621,081)(hereinafter O’Keefe), not Covington et al. (US 2022/0037019) (hereinafter Covington) as stated in office action dated 10/02/2025.
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 and 9 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.
The phrase "inferring likely correlations between digital IDs of initiating users of the digital event records with identities of specific persons of the professional records, by identifying correlations among data of the digital event records and data of the professional records,” in claims 1 and 12 are relative phrases which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase " correlations among data of the digital event records and data of the professional records " is unclear as to what or who digital event record correlation is being identified, it is unclear if digital event record from multiple vendors or initiating users are used for inferring correlation, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on independent claim 1 and independent claim 9.
Claims 1 and 9 recites, “…the likelihood of the inference computed as a parameter reflecting a degree of certainty of the inference. …”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. There is no prior disclosure of "likelihood" and “inference”.
Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blalock et al. (US 2020/0356816) (hereinafter Blalock) in view of Simon et al. (US 2015/0347705) (hereinafter Simon), and in further view of O’Keefe (US 11,621,081)(hereinafter O’Keefe).
Regarding claim 1, Blalock teaches a method, comprising the steps: obtaining by a computer at least one list of records of professionals of a profession, professional records of the obtained professional records identifying respective specific persons in the profession (see Fig. 2, para [0006], para [0043-0044],discloses obtaining professional records, that include health professional attributes that identify names of doctors in physician name attribute).
Blalock does not explicitly teach receiving at a computer, from multiple vendors of digital event records, records of digital events by users of the internet, digital event records identifying respective digital IDs of respective users that initiated the respective digital events; and inferring likely correlations between digital IDs of initiating users of the digital event records with identities of specific persons of the professional records, by identifying correlations among data of the digital event records and data of the professional records, the likelihood of the inference computed as a parameter reflecting a degree of certainty of the inference.
Simon teaches receiving at a computer, from multiple vendors of digital event records, records of digital events by users of the internet, digital event records identifying respective digital IDs of respective users that initiated the respective digital events (see Fig. 10D, Figs. 11A-11B, para [0301-0302], discloses receiving from multiple payer companies (multiple vendors) visit records (digital event records) of patients (users) that initiated visits).
Blalock/Simon are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Blalock to identify respective digital IDs of users that initiated respective digital events from disclosure of Simon. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Simon as “better workflow to integrate improved reporting and care” (para [0326]) and identifying respective digital IDs of users that initiated respective digital events is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Blalock/Simon do not explicitly teach and inferring likely correlations between digital IDs of initiating users of the digital event records with identities of specific persons of the professional records, by identifying correlations among data of the digital event records and data of the professional records, the likelihood of the inference computed as a parameter reflecting a degree of certainty of the inference.
O’Keefe teaches inferring likely correlations between digital IDs of initiating users of the digital event records with identities of specific persons of the professional records, by identifying correlations among data of the digital event records and data of the professional records, the likelihood of the inference computed as a parameter reflecting a degree of certainty of the inference (see Figs. 1-3A, col. 5 ln 56-63, col. 11 ln 3-26, discloses inferring correlation between identified patients medical records and scoring module predicting a probability or likelihood that a respective patient has or will have a specified disease in future, the prediction applying certain business rules and knowledge of clinical processes to define physicians suited for treating a particular disease of interest).
Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Blalock/Simon to infer correlations between data from disclosure of O’Keefe. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by O’Keefe as “identify medical treatment options for improving overall patient health and reducing health system costs” (col. 1 ln 30-32) and inferring correlations between data is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 9, Blalock teaches an apparatus, comprising: one or more processors, and a machine-readable nontransitory memory, having stored therein instructions programmed to cause the processor(s) (see Fig. 7, para [0174], discloses memory and processor) to: obtain at least one list of records of professionals of a profession, professional records of the obtained professional records identifying respective specific persons in the profession (see Fig. 2, para [0006], para [0043-0044],discloses obtaining professional records, that include health professional attributes that identify names of doctors in physician name attribute).
Blalock does not explicitly teach receive, from multiple vendors of digital event records, records of digital events by users of the internet, digital event records identifying respective digital IDs of respective users that initiated the respective digital events; and infer likely correlations between digital IDs of initiating users of the digital event records with identities of specific persons of the professional records, by identifying correlations among data of the digital event records and data of the professional records, the likelihood of the inference computed as a parameter reflecting a degree of certainty of the inference.
Simon teaches receive, from multiple vendors of digital event records, records of digital events by users of the internet, digital event records identifying respective digital IDs of respective users that initiated the respective digital events (see Fig. 10D, Figs. 11A-11B, para [0301-0302], discloses receiving from multiple payer companies (multiple vendors) visit records (digital event records) of patients (users) that initiated visits).
Blalock/Simon are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Blalock to identify respective digital IDs of users that initiated respective digital events from disclosure of Simon. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Simon as “better workflow to integrate improved reporting and care” (para [0326]) and identifying respective digital IDs of users that initiated respective digital events is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Blalock/Simon do not explicitly teach infer likely correlations between digital IDs of initiating users of the digital event records with identities of specific persons of the professional records, by identifying correlations among data of the digital event records and data of the professional records, the likelihood of the inference computed as a parameter reflecting a degree of certainty of the inference.
O’Keefe teaches infer likely correlations between digital IDs of initiating users of the digital event records with identities of specific persons of the professional records, by identifying correlations among data of the digital event records and data of the professional records, the likelihood of the inference computed as a parameter reflecting a degree of certainty of the inference (see Figs. 1-3A, col. 5 ln 56-63, col. 11 ln 3-26, discloses inferring correlation between identified patients medical records and scoring module predicting a probability or likelihood that a respective patient has or will have a specified disease in future, the prediction applying certain business rules and knowledge of clinical processes to define physicians suited for treating a particular disease of interest).
Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Blalock/Simon to infer correlations between data from disclosure of O’Keefe. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by O’Keefe as “identify medical treatment options for improving overall patient health and reducing health system costs” (col. 1 ln 30-32) and inferring correlations between data is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe teach a method of claim 1 and an apparatus of claim 9.
Blalock further teaches the professional records identify professional registry numbers of respective persons (see para [0037], para [0041], discloses National Provider Identifier, NPI registry).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe teach a method of claim 1 and an apparatus of claim 9.
Blalock further teaches wherein the list of professional registry numbers includes the NPI (National Provider ID) assigned by CMS (the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services) (see para [0037-0038], discloses NPI and CMS).
Claims 2, 8, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blalock et al. (US 2020/0356816) (hereinafter Blalock) in view of Simon and O’Keefe as applied to claims 1 and 9, and in further view of Elad et al. (US 2008/0281915) (hereinafter Elad).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe teach a method of claim 1 and an apparatus of claim 9.
Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe do not explicitly teach classifying at least some portion of the digital event records based on a standard taxonomical index; and performing the inferring based at least in part on the taxonomic classification of the digital event records.
Elad teaches classifying at least some portion of the digital event records based on a standard taxonomical index (see Fig. 3, Fig. 9, para [0013], para [0125], discloses taxonomies performing retrieval at a conceptual level); and performing the inferring based at least in part on the taxonomic classification of the digital event records (see Fig. 8, Fig. 11, para [0130], para [0135], discloses inferring the degree of user interest I particular domains and concepts).
Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe/Elad are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe to include taxonomical indexing from disclosure of Elad. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Elad as “provide simple indexing and to avoid ambiguity” (para [0063]) and including taxonomical indexing is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe teach a method of claim 1 and an apparatus of claim 9.
Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe do not explicitly teach the web pages and digital events are taxonomically classified under at least two of SNOMED CT, the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS), and the International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10.
Elad teaches the web pages and digital events are taxonomically classified under at least two of SNOMED CT, the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS), and the International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10 (see para [0182], discloses MeSH and International Classification of Diseases, ICD).
Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe/Elad are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe to include taxonomical indexing from disclosure of Elad. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Elad as “provide simple indexing and to avoid ambiguity” (para [0063]) and including taxonomical indexing is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Claims 4-6 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blalock et al. (US 2020/0356816) (hereinafter Blalock) in view of Simon and O’Keefe as applied to claims 1 and 9, and in further view of Kumar et al. (US 2010/0131835) (hereinafter Kumar).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe teach a method of claim 1 and an apparatus of claim 9.
Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe do not explicitly teach the identification of correlation considers at least three of a cookie value from a user's browser, IP address, user ID assigned by an on boarder, mobile device ID, mobile phone number, and email address.
Kumar teaches the identification of correlation considers at least three of a cookie value from a user's browser, IP address, user ID assigned by an on boarder, mobile device ID, mobile phone number, and email address (see para [0006], para [0032], para [0104], discloses cookies used to track browser behavior and user site navigation, including IP address, email address, and telephone number).
Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe/Kumar are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe to include cookie value from user’s browser from disclosure of Kumar. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Kumar as “provide simple indexing and to avoid ambiguity” (para [0009]) and including cookie value from user’s browser is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe teach a method of claim 1 and an apparatus of claim 9.
Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe do not explicitly teach the identification of correlation considers at least four of a cookie value from a user's browser, IP address, user ID assigned by an on boarder, mobile device ID, mobile phone number, and email address.
Kumar teaches the identification of correlation considers at least four of a cookie value from a user's browser, IP address, user ID assigned by an on boarder, mobile device ID, mobile phone number, and email address (see para [0006], para [0032], para [0104], discloses cookies used to track browser behavior and user site navigation, including IP address, email address, discover ID, and telephone number).
Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe/Kumar are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe to include cookie value from user’s browser from disclosure of Kumar. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Kumar as “provide simple indexing and to avoid ambiguity” (para [0009]) and including cookie value from user’s browser is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe teach a method of claim 1 and an apparatus of claim 9.
Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe do not explicitly teach the identification of correlation includes identifying multiple digital IDs assigned by multiple sources that correspond, to high probability, to a single, identifiable individual.
Kumar teaches the identification of correlation includes identifying multiple digital IDs assigned by multiple sources that correspond, to high probability, to a single, identifiable individual (see para [0122], discloses visitor title probability and visit scores that are close and are not separated by more than a certain threshold).
Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe/Kumar are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Blalock/Simon/O’Keefe to include cookie value from user’s browser from disclosure of Kumar. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Kumar as “provide simple indexing and to avoid ambiguity” (para [0009]) and including cookie value from user’s browser is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY HARMON whose telephone number is (571)270-5861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Courtney Harmon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights