DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed August 17, 2026.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
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 .
Request for Continued Examination
Claims 1-9 are pending.
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 1-9 are rejected to under 35 U.S.C 101 as not being directed to eligible subject matter based on the grounds set out in detail below:
Independent Claims 1 and 7:
Eligibility Step 1 (does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?):
Independent claims 1 falls within the statutory category of machine.
Independent claim 7 falls within the statutory category of method.
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?): Independent claims 1 and 7 (claim 1 being representative) claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim elements which set forth the abstract idea in the independent claims (claim 1 being representative) is:
accessing and maintaining patient medical records, and in which such records are remotely accessible by participating patients and participating doctors,
storing first doctor's patient medical records (531, 532) relating to the first doctor's patients;
storing second doctor's patient medical records (631, 633) relating to the second doctor's patients;
arranged to allow communication
based on a first patient trusted doctor file (230)
for the first patient that each identify a location of the corresponding first patient medical records (531, 631)
subject to the first doctor and second doctor being identified as a trusted doctor in a first patient trusted doctor file (230), to allow to obtain and store links (251, 261) for assessing first patient medical records (531, 631) associated with the first patient,
and to allow to access the first patient medical records (531, 631) associated with the first patient through the stored links (251, 261).
wherein the first patient trusted doctor file (230) comprises, for the first patient, a set of doctor identifiers
stores, for the first patient, a set of link records (251, 261), each link record including a data item identifying a storage location of corresponding first patient medical records (531, 631)
and wherein:(i) receives, a patient initialization request message for the first patient;
(ii) in response to the patient initialization request message and based on the link records (251, 261) stored
retrieve the first patient medical records (531, 631) for transmission
This abstract idea is “certain methods of organizing human activity” as it is following rules and instructions to access patient medical records (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II)
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): For Independent claims 1 and 7 judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In Claims 1 and 7 the additional elements are:
A medical record system comprising a server and a two-way firewall and at least one processor and a non-transitory memory storing executable program code
a first patient access computer device
a first patient database stored on or associated with the first patient access computer device
a first doctor access computer device comprising a network interface
a first doctor database
a second doctor access computer device comprising a network interface
a second doctor database
a cloud network
a packet-based communication network
the access devices
the connected devices
databases
a plurality of doctor access computer devices
Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole.
The additional element (a) is executing the abstract idea and recited as tools or equivalent to apply the abstract idea as “apply-it” to gather, manipulate, and output data as a computer tool. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The additional elements, (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m) are listed above are stated as computer tools or equivalent to apply the abstract idea as “apply-it” to gather and store data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?): The independent claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed above in step 2A prong 2 above, these additional elements, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, amount to no more than applying the abstract idea thus insufficient to provide “significantly more”. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more and the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-6 and 8-9:
Eligibility Step 1 (does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?):
The dependent claims 2-6 and 9 fall within the statutory category of machine.
The dependent claim 8 falls within the statutory category of method.
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?): Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-9 claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims continue to limit the independent claim 1 abstract idea by (1) further limiting the types of data and (2) further the rules and instructions to access medical records. Therefore, the dependent claims inherit the same abstract idea which is “certain methods of organizing human activity” as it is following rules and instructions to access patient medical records (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II)
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): For claims 2-6 and 8-9 this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims recite no additional elements not already recited in the independent claims thus are purely considered the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the dependent claims as a whole do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.04(d)(1).
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?): The dependent claims do not include additional elements not already recited in the independent claims therefore are purely considered the abstract idea and do not provide significantly more. The claims are patent ineligible.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims (Claim 1 as representative). In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of: “the two-way firewall (110):(i) receives, from the first patient access computer device (200) via the cloud network (800), a patient initialization request message for the first patient;(ii) in response to the patient initialization request message and based on the first patient trusted doctor file (230), generates and transmits, via the cloud network (800), one or more retrieval request messages toward at least one of the first doctor database (510) and the second doctor database (610), and, upon receipt of corresponding response messages, causes the first patient access computer device (200) to write, into the first patient database (210), the link records (251, 261) for the first patient; and(iii) receives, from the first doctor access computer device (500) via the cloud network (800) a doctor access request message including an identifier of the first patient, determines, by comparing an identifier associated with the first doctor access computer device (500) against the doctor identifiers stored in the first patient trusted doctor file (230), whether the first doctor access computer device (500) is trusted for the first patient, and, only when the first doctor access computer device (500) is determined to be trusted, forwards, via the cloud network (800) and based on the link records (251, 261) stored in the first patient database (210), one or more database access messages to the first doctor database (510) and/or the second doctor database (610) to retrieve the first patient medical records (531, 631) for transmission to the first doctor access computer device (500)” For additional reasons, see pages 3-9 of applicant’s remarks filed August 17, 2026.
The most remarkable prior art of record is as follows:
Shelton (US20150331999A1)
An internet and/or intranet-based system and method for limiting access to confidential records to properly authorized and authenticated parties. The system's central premise is that the person to whom Such records pertain should control access rights through specific, informed consent. It reinforces the widely held conception of privacy in general, while also providing an expedited and cost-efficient means to find and transfer confidential records. It also gives the repositories where these records are held the right to stipulate the specific terms and conditions that must be fulfilled before they release documents. And it carries out all these legitimate interests in a way that is fast, simple to use and easy to audit. The system optionally includes a billing mechanism to pay for any added cost associated with providing this additional protection; and in its preferred embodiment, is applicable to both digital as well as non-digital records.
Callahan et. al (hereinafter Callahan) (US20020157023A1)
A System for processing data requests from clients via a network is disclosed. The System has an application Server coupled to a network, and a Semantic firewall to pass and filter the content between the application Server and the clients. The application Server provides content from a database to the clients via the network, and the Semantic firewall restricts access to a portion of the content for one or more clients.
Menschik et. al (hereinafter Menschik) (US20050027995A1)
A network for mediating the peer-to-peer transfer of digital patient medical data includes a plurality of distributed agents each associated with a health care provider and connected to a central System. Periodically the agents collect local infor mation relating to patient medical files and/or data Streams, for example diagnostic images and associated reports, and process that information into metadata files acting as point ers to the original files. The metadata files are transmitted to the central System where they are parsed and the attributes are Stored on the central System in patient records with records from the same patient grouped together whenever possible. Registered users can Search the central System, even in the absence of a unique identifier, to identify patient records pointing to the remote patient medical files. Upon finding a patient medical file, the invention provides a Streamlined process for communicating acceSS authorization from the patient to the hospital or facility Storing the medical files. Once patient authorization is received, Secure processes are provided for transferring the data in its entirety to or for Viewing by the user in a peer-to-peer fashion.
US12223094B1- Rudolph
Disclosed herein are systems and methods for storing patient medical information on a local processing device, anonymizing a portion of that medical information and storing it on a second processing device, exposing that anonymized medical information to a third processing device coupled to the second processing device through a network, and restricting users of the third processing device to only accessing HIPAA compliant medical information. Alarms are included for indicating the improper transfer of HIPАА data.
US20200203025A1 – Kaira et. al
A secure , reliable telehealth delivery platform that also provides flexibility and scalability . The platform includes a plurality of geographically dispersed communication servers that facilitate communication sessions between remotely located patients and healthcare providers over a public communications network . The platform includes a connectivity server that manages access among users and locations . The platform also includes a monitoring server that monitors the health and usage of devices coupled to the network and proactively identifies issues requiring intervention before service interruptions occur . That platform may also provide clients in heavily - restricted network environments with seamless access to multiple third - party web service providers.
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C § 101 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on pages 1-2 of remarks have been considered. Applicant argues the 35 U.S.C § 101 rejection should be withdrawn for the following reasons. Claims 1-7 are rejected, under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as allegedly being directed to an abstract idea without "significantly more". The Applicant acknowledges and respectfully traverses the raised anticipatory rejection in view of the following remarks.
Claims 1-7 are rejected, under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as allegedly being directed to an abstract idea without "significantly more", namely organizing access to patient medical records through rules and instructions, implemented using only generic computer components. The present amendments are intended to respond to that characterization by recasting the claims more clearly in technical terms and by emphasizing the concrete distributed computing architecture disclosed in the application.
As amended, the claims are not framed merely in terms of whether a patient or doctor is permitted to access information. Instead, the claims recite a specific server- side processor and non-transitory memory executing program code to implement a two-way firewall, patient-side storage maintaining a trusted doctor data structure, patient-side link records identifying technical storage locations of medical records in multiple separate doctor databases, and message-based interactions over a packet- based cloud network.
The amendments therefore emphasize concrete data structures, storage- location identifiers, network interfaces, and request/response message handling among distributed system components, rather than abstract access rules.
The amended claims further make clear that the patient medical records remain distributed in separate doctor databases and that the patient-side database stores trusted doctor information and record locators rather than a centralized copy of the underlying medical records. This clarifies that the claimed invention is directed to a novel specific network and storage architecture for secure distributed medical-record access, not merely to a mental or organizational concept regarding who may see information. It is in particular the way how and in which location the respective sensible data are stored safely and held electronically accessible.
Applicant respectfully submits that the §101 rejection should be withdrawn.
Examiner appreciates applicant’s arguments but respectfully does not find them persuasive. The MPEP states that the Alice/Mayo two-part test is the only test that should be used to evaluate the eligibility of claims under examination. While the machine-or-transformation test is an important clue to eligibility, it should not be used as a separate test for eligibility. Instead it should be considered as part of the "integration" determination or "significantly more" determination articulated in the Alice/Mayo test. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 605, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010). See MPEP § 2106.04(d) for more information about evaluating whether a claim reciting a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application and MPEP § 2106.05(b) and MPEP § 2106.05(c) for more information about how the machine-or-transformation test fits into the Alice/Mayo two-part framework.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I); (Mathematical Calculations - A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.)
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above. Furthermore, the MPEP state in 2106.04(d), “Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical applications.”
The positively recited claim 1 (as representative) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity) as it is following rules and instructions to access patient medical records this is abstract in substance as a human with or without the aid of a computer environment can determine based on abstract reasoning or aids whether data is able to be accessed or maintained by certain doctors and patients. If applicants reasoning were correct Alice Corp. would have been found eligible. Being implemented by a computer environment automatically does not make the recited claim dispositive of being certain methods of organizing human activity. Furthermore, the claim is taken at its broadest reasonable interpretation based on claim construction and the specification is not read into the claims and its not would a human do it but could a human do it and it is not dispositive of being an abstract idea just because computer elements are used. The claim construction is broad with no further limiting elements themselves that would indicate the claim is not directed to an abstract idea of access management of medical records.
Further responding to applicants arguments, the judicial exception (abstract idea) cannot integrate itself into a practical application but identification of any additional elements recited in the claim can be evaluated to determine if the additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. The claims additional elements are not recited as being an improvement to a technology field or a technology confined to the computer environment in which the claims recite. A technical problem must first be identified in instant application specification and reflected in the claims. Problems recited in the arguments are abstract problems related to record access and management. There are no additional elements recited other than the applied computer elements. The additional elements are apply it and the claims do not recite technical improvements to the computer or firewall or links or other technology confined to the general purpose computer environment whether alone or as a whole, rather these elements are applied to the abstract idea. Further the claim recites arrangement of computer elements as “apply-it” to more efficiently access or manage patient records but there is no improvement to the actual additional elements brought forth and therefore also cannot bring forth significantly more.
Examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C § 101 rejection
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Elizabeth Evans whose telephone number is (571) 270-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mamon Obeid can be reached on (571) 270-1813. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned 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. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ASHLEY ELIZABETH EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/ALAAELDIN M. ELSHAER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
