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 .
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 indicates “generate one or more queries”, and then “send each of the one or more queries” to data repositories, “wherein the one or more queries are sent in parallel”. If only one query is required, how can it be sent in parallel, and/or parallel to what? This can be interpreted as only actually requiring one query (more queries being optional, and sending in parallel also being optional), or this can be interpreted as requiring only one query and the “parallel” sending is merely indicating that same one query being sent to multiple repositories, or this can be interpreted as requiring at least two queries and that they are sent in parallel (e.g., at the same time), or this could be interpreted as requiring two queries and that “parallel” does not indicate a timing requirement for being sent at the same time, but merely that the queries are submitted to two repositories.
Then claim 1 also indicates “receive a response to each of the one or more queries … wherein at least TWO of the received responses are in different formats” (emphasis added); however, again – if/when there is only one query, there is only one response, and the claim explicitly says there only needs to be one response to one query, so how can two responses be required? (see the interpretation(s) above).
In both instances, it is understood that the system needs to be capable of multiple queries and responses, but it is unclear whether the claim scope only requires one query. If this is the case, then no reformatting may be required and additionally renders the method in claim 13 as contingent and possibly not required (MPEP 2111.04(II)). For purposes of examination the examiner will interpret the claims to read that more than one query will be required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are within the four statutory categories, however, as will be shown below, claims
1-20 are nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is representative of the inventive concept and recites:
A system for providing patient medical information, the system comprising:
a server system communicatively coupled with a plurality of data repositories via a data communication network, each data repository comprising patient medical information related to at least one dataset category, the server system configured to:
receive a request for medical information about a first patient;
parse the request to identify the first patient;
analyze the request to identify one or more dataset categories corresponding to the request;
generate one or more queries based on the request, each query corresponding to an identified dataset category, wherein each query is formatted according to a defined application programming interface (API) or a defined uniform resource locator (URL) corresponding to one of the plurality of data repositories;
send each of the one or more queries to at least one of the plurality of data repositories comprising patient medical information related to the identified dataset category corresponding to the respective query, wherein the one or more queries are sent in parallel to the plurality of data repositories for simultaneous processing by each respective data repository;
receive a response to each of the one or more queries, each response including patient medical information about the first patient related to the identified dataset category corresponding to the respective query, wherein at least two of the received responses are in different formats;
reformat one or more of the one or more received responses into a common format;
generate a response to the request for medical information about the first patient, the response comprising one or more of the received responses to each of the one or more queries;
and for each of the one or more of the received responses to each of the one or more queries included in the response to the request for medical information about the first patient, identify one of the plurality of data repositories as a data repository source of the patient medical information about the first patient included in the response to the request for medical information about the first patient.
*Claims 7, 13, 19, and 20 recite similar limitations as claim 1
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because the
highlighted components can practically be performed by the human mind (in this case, the process of
parsing, analyzing, generating, reformatting, and identifying) or using pen and paper. Other than reciting generic computer components/functions such as “a server system” and “data communication network system”, nothing in the claims precludes the highlighted portions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in claim 1, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses the user determining where relevant patient data is stored. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components/functions, then it falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. The recitation of generic computer components/functions of generating also covers behavioral or interactions between people (i.e. a computer), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case a person is able to physically follow the steps to follow a plan), hence the claim falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the
following additional limitations:
Claim 1 recites: “a server system communicatively coupled with a plurality of data repositories via a data communication network”, “receive a request for medical information about a first patient”, “send each of the one or more queries to at least one of the plurality of data repositories comprising patient medical information related to the identified dataset category corresponding to the respective query, wherein the one or more queries are sent in parallel to the plurality of data repositories for simultaneous processing by each respective data repository”, and “receive a response to each of the one or more queries, each response including patient medical information about the first patient related to the identified dataset category corresponding to the respective query, wherein at least two of the received responses are in different formats”
In particular, the additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other
than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations
which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations
are recited as being performed by a “a server system communicatively coupled with a plurality of data repositories via a data communication network”, “API”, and “URL”. The system is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the
recitation of “receive a request for medical information about a first patient”, “send each of the one or more queries to at least one of the plurality of data repositories comprising patient medical information related to the identified dataset category corresponding to the respective query, wherein the one or more queries are sent in parallel to the plurality of data repositories for simultaneous processing by each respective data repository”, and “receive a response to each of the one or more queries, each response including patient medical information about the first patient related to the identified dataset category corresponding to the respective query, wherein at least two of the received responses are in different formats”
Dependent claims 2 and 3 recites server system, user system, and data communication network
Dependent claims 8, 9, 14, and 15 recite processor, user system, and data communication network
Dependent claims 4 and 5 recite server system
Dependent claims 10, 11, 16 and 17 recite processor
Dependent claims 6, 12, and 18 do not include any additional elements beyond those already
recited in independent claims 1, 7, 13, 19, and 20 or dependent claims 2-5, 6, 8-11, and 14-17, hence
do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations
as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken
individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a
computer or any other technology. Their collective function merely provides conventional computer
implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 7, 13, 19, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements: A system in claim 1; amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields as demonstrated by the recitation of an additional element such as:
Sending data, which is the process of transmitting digital information from one device or system to another (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Receiving data, which is the process of a device taking information from another device or a remote system (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Dependent claims 6, 12, and 18 do not include any additional elements beyond those already addressed above for independent claims 1, 7, 13, 19, and 20 or dependent claims 2-5, 6, 8-11, and 14-17. Therefore, they are not deemed to be significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated
above, the limitations of the aforementioned dependent claims amount to no more than generally
linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or do not recite
and additional elements not already recited in independent claim 1, 7, 13, 19, and 20, hence does not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective function merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 is being unpatentable over Dettinger(US20110060757A1)
In view of Wells(US20200183932A1) and Prasad(US6917944B1).
Claim 1
Dettinger discloses:
A system for providing patient medical information, the system comprising: a server system(Para 0028, Dettinger discloses a server computer) communicatively coupled with a plurality of data repositories(Para 0033, Dettinger discloses a data repository) via a data communication network(Para 0029, Dettinger discloses a data communications network), each data repository comprising patient medical information related to at least one dataset category(Para 0007, Dettinger discloses medical records related to the patient), the server system configured to: receive a request for medical information about a first patient(Figure 6, #610, Dettinger discloses a parse request for patient data); parse the request to identify the first patient(Para 0055, Dettinger discloses a process to identify an individual when a patient id is not provided); analyze the request to identify one or more dataset categories corresponding to the request(Figure 6, #620, Dettinger discloses analyzing the request to determine which data repositories should be polled); generate one or more queries based on the request, each query corresponding to an identified dataset category(Figure 1, Dettinger discloses querying multiple data nodes) ; send each of the one or more queries to at least one of the plurality of data repositories comprising patient medical information related to the identified dataset category corresponding to the respective query(Para 0070, Dettinger discloses polling multiple RHIOs simultaneously for patient data) wherein the ; receive a response to each of the one or more queries, each response including patient medical information about the first patient related to the identified dataset category corresponding to the respective query(Figure 7, Dettinger discloses the data locater receiving a response regarding patient medical information) ; generate a response to the request for medical information about the first patient, the response comprising one or more of the received responses to each of the one or more queries(Figure 7, Dettinger discloses the data locater receiving multiple responses regarding patient medical information); and for each of the one or more of the received responses to each of the one or more queries included in the response to the request for medical information about the first patient, identify one of the plurality of data repositories as a data repository source of the patient medical information about the first patient included in the response to the request for medical information about the first patient(Figure 4, Dettinger discloses a master index table which summarizes RHIO and availability of patient records).
Dettinger does not explicitly disclose:
wherein each query is formatted according to a defined application programming interface (API) or a defined uniform resource locator (URL)
one or more queries are sent in parallel to the plurality of data repositories for simultaneous processing by each respective data repository
wherein at least two of the received responses are in different formats; reformat one or more of the one or more received responses into a common format
Wells discloses:
wherein each query is formatted according to a defined application programming interface (API)(Para 0037, Wells discloses an API service that standardizes a query) or a defined uniform resource locator (URL)(Para 0068, Wells discloses URL)
wherein at least two of the received responses are in different formats; reformat one or more of the one or more received responses into a common format(Para 0028, Wells discloses the generation of a supported query format)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system for locating complete aggregation of patient health records of Dettinger, to add query formatting via API and URL, as taught by Wells. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a process to standardize varying formats of information to process patient data more efficiently, thereby improving patient outcomes, but in this case, for a system for optimizing write operations (Para 0004, Wells discloses: “Similarly, when API calls are invoked to write one-to-many relationships to a data repository, the invoked API call can generate multiple, individual write queries to commit data to the data repository.”).
Wells does not explicitly disclose:
one or more queries are sent in parallel to the plurality of data repositories for simultaneous processing by each respective data repository
Prasad discloses:
one or more queries are sent in parallel to the plurality of data repositories for simultaneous processing by each respective data repository(Figure 1, Prasad discloses parallel queries simultaneously sent to data repositories)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system for locating complete aggregation of patient health records of Dettinger, to add query formatting via API and URL, as taught by Wells. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a process to standardize varying formats of information to process patient data more efficiently, thereby improving patient outcomes, but in this case, for a system for configuring access to data repositories (Col. 1, Line 63, Prasad discloses: “There is a specific need for a way to provide an intelligent interface that uses an application request to transparently retrieve data from data repositories that may have different configurations, content, format or that may use different protocols for healthcare applications.”).
Claim 2
Dettinger discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the server system is further configured to receive the request from a user system(Para 0047, Dettinger discloses a data locator, which can be a user system) via the data communication network.
Claim 3
Dettinger discloses:
The system of claim 2, wherein the server system is further configured to provide the response to the user system(Figure 7, Dettinger discloses the data locator receiving a response) via the data communication network.
Claim 4
Dettinger discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the server system is further configured to generate a summary report of the one or more of the received responses to each of the one or more queries(Figure 4, Dettinger discloses a master index, which can be considered a summary report).
Claim 5
Dettinger discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the server system is further configured to reformat at least one data element from each of the one or more received responses to each of the one or more queries into a common format(Figure 4, Dettinger discloses a master index which includes the responses in a standardized format).
Claim 6
Dettinger discloses:
The system of claim 5, wherein the common format comprises the patient medical information about the first patient related to the identified dataset category corresponding to the respective query(Figure 4, #405, Dettinger discloses what could be considered a dataset category) and the data repository source corresponding to said patient medical information(Figure 4, #440, Dettinger discloses RHIO ID which identifies data source).
Claims 7, 13, 19, and 20
Claims 7, 13, 19, and 20 recite similar limitations as claim 1. See claim 1 analysis.
Claims 8 and 14
Claims 8 and 14 recite similar limitations as claim 2. See claim 2 analysis.
Claims 9 and 15
Claims 9 and 15 recite similar limitations as claim 3. See claim 3 analysis.
Claims 10 and 16
Claims 10 and 16 recite similar limitations as claim 4. See claim 4 analysis.
Claims 11 and 17
Claims 11 and 17 recite similar limitations as claim 5. See claim 5 analysis.
Claims 12 and 18
Claims 12 and 18 recite similar limitations as claim 6. See claim 6 analysis.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
(Pages 10-11) Regarding the assertion that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The abstract steps identified recite mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity and rely on generic computers or computer functions to carry out the steps. Please refer to the above analysis for amended claims.
(Page 11) Regarding the assertion that the amended claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The additional elements identified above, do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other
than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations
which amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea. Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The abstract steps identified recite mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity and rely on generic computers or computer functions to carry out the steps. Please refer to the above analysis for amended claims.
(Pages 11-12) Regarding the assertion that the amended claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1, 7, 13, 19, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements: A system in claim 1; amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Please refer to the above analysis for amended claims.
35 U.S.C. 102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kleinloog(US20230197288A1) discloses a healthcare system for providing medical insights. Some disclosures of this invention are similar to that of this instant pending application.
Reicher(US10790057B2) discloses a system and method for retrieval of medical data. Some disclosures of this invention are similar to that of this instant pending application.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 SHERYL GOPAL PATEL whose telephone number is (703)756-1990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30am to 2:30pm PST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/S.G.P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/SCOTT D GARTLAND/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights