DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the amendment received on 01/15/2026. Claims 1-17 and 21-24 remain pending in this application.
The objection to claims 3, 10 and 17 has been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
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 1-17 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 and 21-24 are drawn to a non-transitory media which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture). Claims 8-14 are drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 15-17 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended to recite:
“identifying, at a longitudinal plan system, an electronic medical record (EMR) of a patient from a plurality of patient EMRs, the plurality of patient EMRs searchable for a particular health concept, wherein the particular health concept corresponds to one or more items selected from a group comprising at least a health concern, a social concern, a goal, and an activity associated with a patient, and wherein patient identifier information corresponding to the patient is attached to or included in the EMR of the patient;
determining that a problem documented in the EMR of the patient corresponds to a condition or risk associated with the health concern of the patient and to the particular health concept;
responsive to determining that the problem corresponds to the condition or risk and to the particular health concept:
performing one or both of creating condition or risk data for the patient and storing information corresponding to the condition or risk data in the EMR of the patient; and integrating content corresponding to the EMR of the patient with content corresponding to a clinician workflow of a clinician based on the condition or risk data, wherein:
(a) the clinician workflow of the clinician is associated with personnel identifier information, and
(b) the personnel identifier information indicates one or both of (i) at least one care-team member and (ii) the condition or risk associated with the health concern of the patient;
creating a first electronic access by provider care-team devices via a personnel application programmable interface (API), to enable modifying by the provider care-team devices of one or more information elements selected from a group comprising the EMR of the patient and the clinician workflow of the clinician, wherein modifying the one or more information elements is based on data associated with the personnel identifier information; and
creating a second electronic access by a patient device via a patient API, to enable modifying by the patient device of one or several information elements selected from the group comprising the EMR of the patient and the clinician workflow of the clinician, wherein modifying the one or several information elements is based on data associated with the patient identifier information”.
The limitations of “identifying, at a longitudinal plan system, an electronic medical record (EMR) of a patient from a plurality of patient EMRs, the plurality of patient EMRs searchable for a particular health concept, wherein the particular health concept corresponds to one or more items selected from a group comprising at least a health concern, a social concern, a goal, and an activity associated with a patient, and wherein patient identifier information corresponding to the patient is attached to or included in the EMR of the patient;
determining that a problem documented in the EMR of the patient corresponds to a condition or risk associated with the health concern of the patient and to the particular health concept;
responsive to determining that the problem corresponds to the condition or risk and to the particular health concept:
performing one or both of creating condition or risk data for the patient and storing information corresponding to the condition or risk data in the EMR of the patient; and integrating content corresponding to the EMR of the patient with content corresponding to a clinician workflow of a clinician based on the condition or risk data, wherein:
(a) the clinician workflow of the clinician is associated with personnel identifier information, and
(b) the personnel identifier information indicates one or both of (i) at least one care-team member and (ii) the condition or risk associated with the health concern of the patient;” correspond to an abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity”, since the claims recite an abstract idea of managing interactions between people, such as user following rules and instructions. The mere nominal recitation of a generic one or more processors does not take the claims out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-17, 21-24 are ultimately dependent from claims 1, 8, 15 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15. Therefore, claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-17, 21-24 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-17, 21-24 describe a further limitation regarding the basis for determining a problem documented that corresponds to a condition of risk and creating condition or risk data for the patient. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claims 1, 8, 15, without adding significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims recite the additional elements of are provided below in the bolded style:
“identifying, at a longitudinal plan system, an electronic medical record (EMR) of a patient from a plurality of patient EMRs, the plurality of patient EMRs searchable for a particular health concept, wherein the particular health concept corresponds to one or more items selected from a group comprising at least a health concern, a social concern, a goal, and an activity associated with a patient, and wherein patient identifier information corresponding to the patient is attached to or included in the EMR of the patient;
determining that a problem documented in the EMR of the patient corresponds to a condition or risk associated with the health concern of the patient and to the particular health concept;
responsive to determining that the problem corresponds to the condition or risk and to the particular health concept:
performing one or both of creating condition or risk data for the patient and storing information corresponding to the condition or risk data in the EMR of the patient; and integrating content corresponding to the EMR of the patient with content corresponding to a clinician workflow of a clinician based on the condition or risk data, wherein:
(a) the clinician workflow of the clinician is associated with personnel identifier information, and
(b) the personnel identifier information indicates one or both of (i) at least one care-team member and (ii) the condition or risk associated with the health concern of the patient;
creating a first electronic access by provider care-team devices via a personnel application programmable interface (API), to enable modifying by the provider care-team devices of one or more information elements selected from a group comprising the EMR of the patient and the clinician workflow of the clinician, wherein modifying the one or more information elements is based on data associated with the personnel identifier information; and
creating a second electronic access by a patient device via a patient API, to enable modifying by the patient device of one or several information elements selected from the group comprising the EMR of the patient and the clinician workflow of the clinician, wherein modifying the one or several information elements is based on data associated with the patient identifier information”.
These additional elements correspond to hardware and software elements, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular field or technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)).
Accordingly, these 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using one or more processors to perform the identifying, determining and generating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed below in the order in which they appear.
Argument 1: Applicant argues that the Office action recites that claims 1, 8 and 14 corresponds to an abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity”, which means that claims involve an abstract idea and not recite an abstract idea.
In response, Examiner submits that claim limitations correspond to an abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity”, since the claims recite an abstract idea of “identifying an electronic medical record of the patient…, determining that a problem documented in the EMR of the patient corresponds to a condition or risk associated with the health concern of the patient and to the particular health concern; performing…creating condition or risk data for the patient…; and integrating content corresponding to the EMR of the patient with content corresponding to a clinician workflow…”, which is directed to managing interactions between people, such as user following rules and instructions, with a recitation of generic computing component (one or more hardware processors).
Argument 2: With respect to Applicant's assertion that the prior art does not teach the recited claims, Examiner asserts that the new rejections, as presented below, do teach the recited claims. Examiner further notes that, under current Office guidelines, patentability with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 is not evaluated through the lens of 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Although novelty and non-obviousness may provide a useful clue in identifying limitations that are not conventional or routine in the field (79 Fed. Reg. 74624), claims that overcome rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 are not necessarily statutory in nature. As a result, Applicant's argument is not persuasive.
Argument 3: Applicant argues that claim 1 provides an improvement in technology, since claimed invention provides patient engaging in the decision making, where results in avoiding a piecemeal process and patient repeats the information.
In response, Examiner submits that creating an electronic access for the patient, where patient can modify several information in the EMR and in the clinician workflow does not provide any improvement in the technology, since patient (or a user) access the EMR (medical records) and modify information is not directed to an improvement to the technology. There is no indication in the current claims nor in the current specification of any improvement in the existing technology and how the improvement has been achieved. The MPEP recites “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.” (MPEP § 2106.05(a)).
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILEK B COBANOGLU whose telephone number is (571)272-8295. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Obeid Mamon can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/DILEK B COBANOGLU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights