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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/06/2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 07/06/2026. Claim 5 has been amended. Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claim(s) 1-15 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: “providing first display signals by the processing unit representing the first set of medical data and the second set of medical data in a first graph over time wherein the medical data of the first set of medical data and the second set of medical data are in chronological order of their times of generation according to the reference concept of time in the first graph and the spacing between medical data in the direction of time in the first graph is directly proportional to the difference in their times of generation according to the reference concept of time, and the change of the local time between generation of the first set of medical data and the second set of medical data is indicated in the first graph.” Because the prior art does not teach or disclose the above features in the specific manner and combinations recited in independent claims 1, 14-15, claims 1, 14-15 are hereby deemed to be allowable over prior art. Originally numbered dependent claims 2-13 incorporate the allowable features of originally numbered independent claim 1, through dependency.
However, the claims are still rejected under 101.
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 1-15 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 14 is drawn to a computer program which, for purposes of compact prosecution, is within the four statutory categories (i.e., manufacture). Claim 15 is drawn to a mobile device which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine).
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 14-15) recites…a) receiving…a first set of a patient’s medical data, wherein the medical data of the first set of medical data are associated with respective first time stamps indicating the respective times of generation of the medical data of the first set of medical data according to a first local time; b) associating…the medical data of the first set of medical data with respective second time stamps indicating the respective times of generation of the medical data of the first set of medical data according to a reference concept of time; c) receiving…a second set of the patient’s medical data, wherein the medical data of the second set of medical data are associated with respective third time stamps indicating the respective times of generation of the medical data of the second set of medical data according to a second local time; d) associating…the medical data of the second set of medical data with respective fourth time stamps indicating the respective times of generation of the medical data of the second set of medical data according to the reference concept of time; e) detecting…a change of the local time between generation of the first set of medical data and the second set of medical data; f) providing first display [instructions]…representing the first set of medical data and the second set of medical data in a first graph over time wherein the medical data of the first set of medical data and the second set of medical data are in chronological order of their times of generation according to the reference concept of time in the first graph and the spacing between medical data in the direction of time in the first graph is directly proportional to the difference in their times of generation according to the reference concept of time, and the change of the local time between generation of the first set of medical data and the second set of medical data is indicated in the first graph.
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, analyze the collected data, and output a graph based on the analysis to consolidate disparate data for a user 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., an electronic disease management system comprising a processing unit and a display; signals). Claim 14 recites additional elements (i.e., A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions; an electronic disease management systems comprising a processing unit and a display). Claim 15 recites additional elements (i.e., A mobile device comprising the processing unit and the display). Looking to the specifications, a computing system having a processing unit, a display, signals, non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions; mobile device is described at a high level of generality (¶ 0021; ¶ 00057-0065), 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. 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 computing system having a processing unit, a display, signals, non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions; mobile device) 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. 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 2-13 include all the limitations of the parent claims and further elaborate on the abstract idea discussed above and incorporated herein.
Claims 2-4, 8-11, 13 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.”
Claim 5 further recites the additional elements of “wherein the display is a touch sensitive display comprising a controller to control the display, and a sensing unit, wherein the controller is adapted to receive the first display signals and to control the display to display the first graph or a partial area thereof at a time,” which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., a touch sensitive display comprising a controller; a sensing unit) and 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, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claim 6 further recites the additional elements of “a first scroll.” Claim 7 further recites the additional elements of “additional signals.” Claim 12 further recites the additional elements of “third display signals.” A “scroll” and “signals” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and 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, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. 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 07/06/2026 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 07/06/2026.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that:
Regarding the 112(b) rejections, the amendments overcome the rejections.
Regarding the 101 rejections,
“In McRO, the Federal Circuit noted that the improvement was in allowing computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters… Similarly, the claims of the present application set forth a set of specific rules that render a first graph over time wherein the medical data of the first set of medical data and the second set of medical data are in chronological order of their times of generation according to the reference concept of time in the first graph and the spacing between medical data in the direction of time in the first graph is directly proportional to the difference in their times of generation according to the reference concept of time when there has been a change of local time between the generation of the first and second sets of medical data. As discussed above, this provides an accurate and comprehensible representation of the medical data that facilitates the analysis of the medical data and the treatment decisions that are based on the data.”
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,
It is respectfully submitted that Examiner withdraws the aforementioned 112(b) rejections of Office Action dated 02/05/2026 because the amendments have rendered the rejections moot.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (b) regarding the 101 rejections,
“In McRO, the Federal Circuit noted that the improvement was in allowing computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters… Similarly, the claims of the present application set forth a set of specific rules that render a first graph over time wherein the medical data of the first set of medical data and the second set of medical data are in chronological order of their times of generation according to the reference concept of time in the first graph and the spacing between medical data in the direction of time in the first graph is directly proportional to the difference in their times of generation according to the reference concept of time when there has been a change of local time between the generation of the first and second sets of medical data. As discussed above, this provides an accurate and comprehensible representation of the medical data that facilitates the analysis of the medical data and the treatment decisions that are based on the data”:
It is respectfully submitted that Applicant argues “In McRO, the Federal Circuit noted that the improvement was in allowing computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters… Similarly, the claims of the present application set forth a set of specific rules that render a first graph over time wherein the medical data of the first set of medical data and the second set of medical data are in chronological order of their times of generation according to the reference concept of time in the first graph and the spacing between medical data in the direction of time in the first graph is directly proportional to the difference in their times of generation according to the reference concept of time when there has been a change of local time between the generation of the first and second sets of medical data.” However, Applicant fails to specify how the claims of the present invention are similar to those found eligible in McRO. Regardless, the claim limitations of the present invention are different from the claim limitations of the aforementioned case law. Even if the claim limitations of the present invention are similar to that of the claims found eligible (and they are not similar), the claimed inventions are fundamentally different in scope and examples should be interpreted based on the asserted fact patterns; as previously stated above, other fact patterns may have different eligibility outcomes, as is the case with the claims of the present invention. The claims found eligible in McRO are directed to improvements to computer functionality (i.e., “allowing computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters,” as noted by Applicant); unlike in McRO, the claims of the present invention to which Applicant refer do not recite any technological computational efficiency, solution, or improvement, but are directed to rules or instructions to collect data, analyze the collected data, and output a graph based on the analysis to consolidate disparate data for a user in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra, which is the abstract idea.
Examiner cannot find any problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined, which per broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification, is a well-known, general purpose computer. As stated previously above, 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. While the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing any technical improvement or any physical improvement to the computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Furthermore, the claim limitations to which Applicant refer as “a set of specific rules that render a first graph over time wherein the medical data of the first set of medical data and the second set of medical data are in chronological order of their times of generation according to the reference concept of time in the first graph and the spacing between medical data in the direction of time in the first graph is directly proportional to the difference in their times of generation according to the reference concept of time when there has been a change of local time between the generation of the first and second sets of medical data” are interpreted as part of the abstract idea, and not as additional elements to be interpreted in Step 2A, Prong Two. Even if the claims provide the alleged improvements, any alleged benefits of the invention are at best, an improvement to the abstract idea. However, an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea and the claims do not provide a technical improvement.
Applicant argues “an accurate and comprehensible representation of the medical data that facilitates the analysis of the medical data and the treatment decisions that are based on the data.” However, “an accurate and comprehensible representation of the medical data that facilitates the analysis of the medical data and the treatment decisions that are based on the data” 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.
Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and 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, Examiner maintains the 101 rejections of claims 1-15, 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