CTNF 18/918,305 CTNF 82823 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Rejection of claims 1-7 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more Although each claim nominally falls within at least one of the four eligible categories under step 1 of the 101 analysis, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (which is a judicial exception to the four categories) without significantly more. First, with respect to prong one of step 2A of the analysis, each of independent claims 1 and 7 is directed to the abstract idea of distributing medical records according to patient permissions . Claim 1 will be treated as representative. The idea is recited in the following aspects of claim 1 (and in the corresponding aspects of the claim 7): “…transmits a data sharing request…” “…accepts the sharing request…” “…accepting approval for sharing the data…and upon acceptance…causes the data to be shared…”. The idea amounts to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, amounts to a method of organizing interactions between people. For example, but for the generic computer components, the claimed process encompasses sending a sharing request by mail, replying by mail, and releasing paper medical records by a secretary. The mere nominal recitation of generic computer components does not take the claim out the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, each of the independent claims recites an abstract idea. Next, with respect to prong two of step 2A, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in each of the independent claims . In particular, besides the abstract idea itself, each claim recites generic computer functionality at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Simply invoking general-purpose computers or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, or claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer, is not enough to transform the claims into a patent-eligible application, and does not provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, to the extent that the claims require such as gathering and transmitting data over a network, or outputting, storing, or displaying data, these features amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Still further, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). As specific examples, the claims recite the following elements which are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application: hardware processors, a medical facility terminal, a display displaying an “approver”, and a program. The above elements amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a computer. Therefore, the claimed invention clearly does not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or to any other technology or technical field. Rather than presenting a technological solution to a technological problem, each claim represents merely an abstract idea that is implemented using computers as tools. Therefore, the claims clearly cannot be said to represent a technological improvement. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the claims recite an abstract idea but do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application , each claim is directed to an abstract idea . Next, with respect to step 2B, each of the independent claims does 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 elements amount to mere instructions to apply the idea, insignificant extra-solution activity, or mere field-of-use limitations. Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea and mere field-of-use limitations cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, as discussed above, to the extent that the claims recite or imply features such as gathering and transmitting data over a network, or outputting, storing, or displaying data, these features amount to insignificant extra- solution activity, which cannot amount to significantly more to the abstract idea. Finally, upon reevaluating the elements previously determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, they cannot be considered unconventional. Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, each of the claims as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For the reasons given above, each of the independent claims is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and therefore the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Dependent claims 2-6 are rejected under the same rationale as given above. Each of these claims include further details of the abstract idea, making it more specific, but no less abstract. Any additionally recited limitations which are not directed to the abstract idea itself do not include limitations which amount to a practical application of, or significantly more than, the abstract idea. Rejection of claim 7 for claiming outside a statutory category Claim 7 is directed to “a program causing a computer…to execute” various steps. Software per se is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter within the meaning of 35 USC 101. The examiner recommends amending the claim to recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium upon which the program is recorded. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglass (US Pub. No. 2015/0379203) in view of Crawford (US Pub. No. 2018/0052958) . Regarding claim 1, Douglass shows an information sharing system, comprising: a first hardware processor that transmits a data sharing request from a medical facility terminal used by a medical professional (see [0078], [0082]) ; and a second hardware processor that accepts the sharing request transmitted from the first hardware processor (see [0078], [0082]) , wherein the second hardware processor causes a display included in the user terminal to display an approver for accepting approval for sharing the data with the medical facility terminal, and upon acceptance of the approval for sharing the data with the medical facility terminal by the approver, causes the data to be shared with the medical facility terminal (see [0048], [0060]-[0062], [0071]) . Douglass does not explicitly show: transmitting the sharing request from the medical facility terminal to a user terminal used by a patient; and that the causing of a display to display an approver for accepting approval is upon acceptance of the sharing request . Crawford shows: transmitting a sharing request from the medical facility terminal to a user terminal used by a patient (e.g., a request for vitals or other information from a healthcare provider’s device to a user’s phone: see [0022], [0038], [0059]) ; and causing a display to display an approver for accepting approval upon acceptance of the sharing request (e.g., by displaying a dialog which the user can accept or decline: see [0022], [0038], [0059]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Douglass with the teachings of Crawford in order to allow users to decide based on their comfort level at the moment whether to share medical information. Regarding claim 2, the combination shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein the approver is capable of accepting that the sharing of the data with the medical facility terminal is not approved (e.g., by declining: see Crawford, [0038] and [0059], as combined above) . Regarding claim 3, the combination shows the limitations of claim 2 as applied above and further shows wherein, the second hardware processor notifies the medical facility terminal that the sharing of the data with medical facility terminal has not been approved when the approver accepts that the sharing of the data with the medical facility terminal is not accepted (see Crawford, [0038] and [0059], including where a user’s decline represents a request for assistance from medical personnel, as combined above) . Regarding claim 4, the combination shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein the second hardware processor causes an instructor for accepting an instruction to transmit the sharing request of the data to be displayed in association with patient information of a patient with whom the data is associated (see Douglass, [0048], [0060]-[0062], [0071]; Crawford, [0022], [0038], [0059], as combined above) . Regarding claim 5, the combination shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein the first hardware processor accepts a selection of a type of the data, and transmits the sharing request of the data of the selected type (see Douglass, [0048], [0060]-[0062], [0071]; Crawford, [0022], [0038], [0059], as combined above). Regarding claim 6, the combination shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows a third hardware processor that accepts, at the user terminal, an instruction to share the data with the medical facility terminal, wherein the second hardware processor shares the data with the medical facility terminal when the instruction is accepted by the third hardware processor (see Douglass, [0048], [0060]-[0062], [0071]; Crawford, [0022], [0038], [0059], as combined above) . Regarding claim 7, Douglass shows a program causing a computer of an information sharing system to execute: accepting a data sharing request from a medical facility terminal used by a medical professional (see [0078], [0082]) ; displaying an approver for accepting approval for sharing the data with the medical facility terminal on a display included in the user terminal (see [0048], [0060]-[0062], [0071]) ; and sharing the data with the medical facility terminal upon acceptance of the approval for sharing the data with the medical facility terminal by the approver (see [0048], [0060]-[0062], [0071]) . Douglass does not explicitly show: accepting the sharing request from the medical facility terminal to a user terminal used by a patient; and that the displaying an approver for sharing the data is upon acceptance of the sharing request . Crawford shows: accepting a sharing request from the medical facility terminal to a user terminal used by a patient (e.g., a request for vitals or other information from a healthcare provider’s device to a user’s phone: see [0022], [0038], [0059]) ; and displaying an approver for sharing the data upon acceptance of the sharing request (e.g., by displaying a dialog which the user can accept or decline: see [0022], [0038], [0059]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Douglass with the teachings of Crawford in order to allow users to decide based on their comfort level at the moment whether to share medical information . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Biagini whose telephone number is (571)272-9743. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 9 AM - 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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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. Christopher D. Biagini Primary Examiner Art Unit 2445 /Christopher Biagini/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/918,305 Page 2 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/918,305 Page 3 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/918,305 Page 4 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/918,305 Page 5 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/918,305 Page 6 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/918,305 Page 7 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/918,305 Page 8 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/918,305 Page 9 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/918,305 Page 10 Art Unit: 2445
Prosecution Insights