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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment received on 07/02/2026 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 9-10, 12, 20-21, 23 and 26-27 have been amended. Claims 1-28 are currently pending in the application.
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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, the Examiner is guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019); the October 2019 Update of the 2019 Revised Guidance (Oct. 17, 2019); 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (July 17, 2024), and the USPTO’s Paten Subject Matter Eligibility Memorandums of August 4, 2025 and December 5, 2025.
Step 1
Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas). Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U. S. ____ (2014).
Claims 1 and 23 are directed to a statutory category, because the recited series of steps satisfies the requirements of a process (a series of acts).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 12 encompasses a computer system (e.g., hardware such as a processor and memory) that implements the recited functions. If assuming that the system comprises a device or set of devices, then the system is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
(Step 1: Yes).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more of generating a user interface of a treatment history for a patient. The claim recites:
23. A method for generating a user interface of a treatment history for a patient comprising:
receiving, with a processor, medical data for the patient, the medical data corresponding to an initial patient visit to a healthcare provider; and
generating, with the processor, graphical data corresponding to a timeline view, the generating of the graphical data further comprising:
generating a first graphical element corresponding to a first diagnosis based on the medical data during the initial patient visit, the first graphical element further comprising:
a graphical indicator of the first diagnosis for a first medical condition; and
at least one graphical sub-element, the at least one graphical sub-element being relevant to a physiological parameter selected from the medical data, the physiological parameter being related to the first diagnosis, and
generating, with a display device coupled to the processor, a display of the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view.
The recited limitations, as currently amended, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, such as following rules or instructions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. (Note: Examiner’s language (e.g. “receiving data”; and “generating a graphical indicator”; etc.) is an abbreviated reference to the detailed claim steps and is not an oversimplification of the claim language; the Examiner employing such shortcuts (that refer to more specific steps) when attempting to explain the rejection). That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, and/or performed as organized human activity. Aside from the general technological environment (addressed below), it covers purely mental concepts and/or certain methods of organizing human activity processes, and the mere nominal recitation of a generic network appliance (e.g. an interface for inputting or outputting data, or generic network-based storage devices and displays) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Specifically, the utilizing statistical tools to process data and to output the estimated values - said functions could be performed by a human using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas (e.g., mental comparison regarding a sample or test subject to a control or target data in Ambry, Myriad CAFC, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Grams)). In Grams, the recited functions require obtaining data or patient information (from sensors), and analyze that data to ascertain the existence and identity of an abnormality or estimated responses, and possible causes thereof. While said functions are performed by a computer, they are in essence a mathematical algorithm, in that they represent "[a] procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem." Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 93 S.Ct. 253, 254, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972). Moreover, the Federal Circuit has held, “without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, the claimed subject matter is directed to the abstract idea of manipulating existing information (e.g., “received medical data for the patient”) to generate additional information (e.g., “graphical element and sub-element”). See id. Further, “analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.” Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354; see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
It is similar to other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts. See, also, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)—tailoring sales information presented to a user based on, e.g., user data and time data; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC 823 F.3d 607, 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2016) - recording, transmitting and administering digital images; and DataTreasury Corp. v. Fidelity National Information Services 669 Fed. Appx. 572 (Fed. Cir. 2016) - remote image capture with centralized processing and storage.
As per receiving, storing and outputting data limitations, it has been held that “As many cases make clear, even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted); see also In re Jobin, 811 F. App’x 633, 637 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (claims to collecting, organizing, grouping, and storing data using techniques such as conducting a survey or crowdsourcing recited a method of organizing human activity, which is a hallmark of abstract ideas).
All these cases describe the significant aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
Therefore, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and/or “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes).
Step 2A – Prong 2
In Prong Two, the Examiner determines whether claim 23, as a whole, recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, i.e., whether the additional elements apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. If the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the judicial exception. See id., 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. “An additional element [that] reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field” is indicative of integrating a judicial exception into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
The Examiner determined that this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – using a processor to perform the steps of receiving data; and generating a graphical indicator and a graphical sub-element. However, the processor in each step is recited (or implied) at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of processing data, including receiving, storing, comparing, and outputting data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The processor that performs the recited steps merely automates these steps which can be done mentally or manually. Thus, while the additional elements have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." The claim only manipulates abstract data elements into another form, and does not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and, instead, uses computer elements as tools in a conventional way to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above.
Further, 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 improves any other technology, - their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. None of the additional elements "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
The recited steps do not control or improve operation of a machine (MPEP 2106.05(a)), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), but, instead, require receiving, storing, comparing and outputting data.
As per receiving, storing and/or outputting data limitations, these recitations amount to mere data gathering and/or outputting, is insignificant post-solution or extra-solution component and represents nominal recitation of technology. Insignificant "post-solution” or “extra-solution" activity means activity that is not central to the purpose of the method invented by the applicant. However, “(c) Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the execution of the claimed method steps. Use of a machine or apparatus that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would weigh against eligibility”. See Bilski, 138 S. Ct. at 3230 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, ___ (1978)). Thus, claim drafting strategies that attempt to circumvent the basic exceptions to § 101 using, for example, highly stylized language, hollow field-of-use limitations, or the recitation of token post-solution activity should not be credited. See Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3230.
Therefore, claim 23 as a whole, outputs only data structure, - everything remains in the form of a code stored in the computer memory. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No).
Step 2B
If a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under revised Step 2A, examiners should then evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether the provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
The Examiner determined that the claim 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 element of using a processor to perform the steps of receiving data; and generating a graphical indicator and a graphical sub-element amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim is now re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The method would require a processor and memory in order to perform basic computer functions of receiving information, storing the information in a database, retrieving information from the database, comparing data, and outputting said information. These components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality. Based on the Specification, the invention utilizes conventional communication networks and generic processors, which can be found in mobile devices or desktop computers, conventional memory and display devices, and the functions performed by said generic computer elements are basic functions of a computer - performing a mathematical operation, receiving, storing, comparing and outputting data - have recognized by the courts as routine and conventional activity. Specifically, regarding the recited functions, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) defines said functions as routine and conventional, or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”); collecting and comparing known information in Classen 659 F.3d 1057, 100 U.S.P.Q.2d 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and
vi. A web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Thus, the background of the current application does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Also, the claim does not involve a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces, as asserted, by receiving information from an external source of data. The receiving of data from an external source over a network, such as via the Internet, can fairly be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity that does not receive patentable weight. See Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d sub nom Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity). Similar to Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014): “And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.” Here, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. The advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular asserted inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea. As such, the additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements, do not make the claim as a whole significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, a conclusion that the recited steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, compare to McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (McRO), claim 23 does not recite any improvement of a technical field. The claims in McRO aim to automate a 3-D animator’s tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes, which is accomplished through rules that are applied to the timed transcript to determine the morph weight outputs, wherein said rules configured to produce more realistic speech by ‘taking into consideration the differences in mouth positions for similar phonemes based on context.’” Thus, the basis for the McRO Court’s decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology (allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’ that previously could only be produced by human animators).” The specification in McRO underlined how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated.
Contrary to claims in McRO, claim 23 does not recite any improvement in computer-related technology; there is no improvements in the operation of a computer or a computer network per se, there is no improvements claimed as a set of ‘rules’ (basically mathematical relationships) that improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer. The claimed steps of receiving data; and generating a graphical indicator and a graphical sub-element represent a collection of conventional steps performed by a computer - receiving data, manipulating data, and outputting manipulated data on a conventional display. Claim 23 does not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the recited steps on a set of generic computer components and display devices. Nothing in the claim, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, calculating and presenting the desired information. Said computing elements are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of a computer, such as performing a mathematical operation and receiving and outputting data, that would be needed to apply the abstract idea via computer. Therefore, claim 23 does not include any recitation that improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer.
Thus, the recited steps do not improve the functioning of computers itself, including of the processor(s) or the network elements. There are no physical improvements in the claim, like a faster processor or more efficient memory, and there is no operational improvement, like mathematical computation that improve the functioning of the computer. Applicant did not invent a new type of computer; Applicant like everyone else programs their computer to perform functions. The Supreme Court in Alice indicated that an abstract claim might be statutory if it improved another technology or the computer processing itself. Using a (programmed) computer to implement a common business practice does neither. The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, comparing and transmitting data—see the Specification as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions). 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 improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. “However, it is not apparent how appellant’s programmed digital computer can produce any synergistic result. Instead, the computer will simply do the job it is instructed to do. Where is there any surprising or unexpected result? The unlikelihood of any such result is merely one more reason why patents should not be granted in situations where the only novelty is in the programming of general purpose digital computers”. See Sakraida v. Ag. Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 [ 96 S.Ct. 1532, 47 L.Ed.2d 784], 189 USPQ 449 (1976) and A P Tea Co. V. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 [ 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162], 87 USPQ 303 (1950).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-15, 20-23 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryan et al. (US 2015/0095066 A1) (IDS of 11/11/2024).
Claims 1 and 12. Ryan et al. (Ryan) discloses a method for generating a user interface of a treatment history for a patient comprising:
receiving, with a processor, medical data for the patient, the medical data corresponding to a plurality of patient visits to a healthcare provider; Fig. 18; [0054]; [0131]; [0164]; [0190]; [0197], and
generating, with the processor, graphical data corresponding to a timeline view of the plurality of patient visits, Figs. 18 and 21; [0133]; [0134],
the generating of the graphical data further comprising:
generating a first graphical element corresponding to a first diagnosis based on the medical data during a current patient visit in the plurality of patient visits, Figs. 18 and 21; [0131], the first graphical element further comprising:
a graphical indicator of the first diagnosis for a first medical condition; Fig. 18; [0131]; [0134]; [0196]; [0197], and
at least one graphical sub-element, the at least one graphical sub-element being relevant to a physiological parameter selected from the medical data, the physiological parameter being related to the first diagnosis; Fig. 18; [0197]; [0199], and
generating a second graphical element corresponding to a second diagnosis based on the medical data for the patient during a first prior patient visit in the plurality of patient visits, Fig. 18; [0131]; [0133]; [0134]; [0197]
the second graphical element further comprising: a graphical indicator of the second diagnosis for a second medical condition; Fig. 18, “Oct. 10”; [0131]; [0133]; [0134]; [0197], and
at least one graphical sub-element, the at least one graphical sub-element being relevant to a physiological parameter selected from the medical data, the physiological parameter being related to the second diagnosis; Fig. 18; [0131]; [0133]; [0134]; [0197], and
generating a first graphical connector between the second graphical element and the first graphical element, the first graphical connector indicating a progression of time between the first prior patient visit and the current patient visit in the timeline view. Figs. 18, “1822”; Fig. 21, “2130”;
generating, with a display device coupled to the processor, a display of the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view. Fig. 18, “1822”; Fig. 21, “2130”.
Claims 2 and 13. The method of claim 1, the generating, with the processor, of the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view further comprising:
generating graphical data corresponding to a timeline slider in the timeline view; Fig. 18, “1826”; Fig. 21
generating a third graphical element relevant to a third diagnosis in the medical data during a second prior patient visit in the plurality of patient visits, the second prior patient visit occurring prior to the first prior patient visit, in response to a user input to the timeline slider that expands a time range depicted in the timeline view, Figs. 18 and 21; [0192]; [0197]
the third graphical element further comprising: a graphical indicator of the third diagnosis for a third medical condition; Figs. 18 and 21,
and at least one graphical sub-element, the at least one graphical sub-element being relevant to a physiological parameter selected from the medical data, the physiological parameter being related to the third diagnosis; Figs. 18 and 21; [0192]; [0197]
and generating a second graphical connector between the third graphical element and the second graphical element, the graphical connector indicating a progression of time between the second prior patient visit and the first prior patient visit in the timeline view. Figs. 18 and 21; [0192]; [0197]
Claims 3 and 14. The method of claim 1, the generating, with the processor, of the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view further comprising:
generating graphical data corresponding to a timeline slider in the timeline view; Figs. 18 and 21;
generating a third graphical element relevant to a third diagnosis in the medical data during a second prior patient visit in the plurality of patient visits, the second prior patient visit occurring prior to the first prior patient visit, in response to a user input to the timeline slider that moves to an earlier time range in the timeline view, Figs. 18 and 21; [0192]; [0197]
the third graphical element further comprising: a graphical indicator of the third diagnosis for a third medical condition; and at least one graphical sub-element, the at least one graphical sub-element being relevant to a physiological parameter selected from the medical data, the physiological parameter being related to the third diagnosis; Figs. 18 and 21; [0192]; [0197]
generating a second graphical connector between the second graphical element and the third graphical element, the graphical connector indicating a progression of time between the second prior patient visit and the first prior patient visit in the timeline view; Figs. 18 and 21; [0192]; [0197], and
removing the first graphical element from the timeline view in response to the current patient visit occurring outside of the earlier time range in the timeline view. Fig. 18; when selecting “Today”, information at “1824” disappears.
Claims 4 and 15. The method of claim 1, the generating, with the processor, of the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view further comprising: generating a third graphical element of a timeline that indicates a first date of the first prior patient visit and a second date of the current patient visit. Figs. 18 and 21
Claims 9 and 20. The method of claim 1 further comprising: generating the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view with the processor being provided in a server computing system; and transmitting, with the processor and a network transceiver, the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view to a client computing system, wherein the client computing system provides the display device that generates the display of the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view. Fig. 18, “1822”; Fig. 21, “2130”; [0044]; [0047] – [0050]; [0063]
Claims 10 and 21. The method of claim 1 further comprising: generating the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view with the processor being provided in a computing system; and displaying the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view with a display device being provided in the computing system. Figs. 18 and 21
Claims 11 and 22. The method of claim 10, wherein the computing system is a terminal of a healthcare provider. [0007]; [0041]; [0047]; [0060] – [0062]; [0209]
Claim 23. Ryan discloses a method for generating a user interface of a treatment history for a patient comprising:
receiving, with a processor, medical data for the patient, the medical data corresponding to an initial patient visit to a healthcare provider; Fig. 18; [0054]; [0131]; [0164]; [0190]; [0197], and
generating, with the processor, graphical data corresponding to a timeline view, Figs. 18 and 21; [0133]; [0134],
the generating of the graphical data further comprising:
generating a first graphical element corresponding to a first diagnosis based on the medical data during the initial patient visit, Figs. 18 and 21; [0131], the first graphical element further comprising:
a graphical indicator of the first diagnosis for a first medical condition; Fig. 18; [0131]; [0134]; [0196]; [0197], and
at least one graphical sub-element, the at least one graphical sub-element being relevant to a physiological parameter selected from the medical data, the physiological parameter being related to the first diagnosis; Fig. 18; [0197]; [0199], and
generating, with a display device coupled to the processor, a display of the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view. Fig. 18, “1822”; Fig. 21, “2130”.
Claim 26. The method of claim 23 further comprising: generating the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view with the processor being provided in a server computing system; and transmitting, with the processor and a network transceiver, the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view to a client computing system, wherein the client computing system provides the display device that generates the display of the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view. Fig. 18, “1822”; Fig. 21, “2130”; [0044]; [0047] – [0050]; [0063]
Claim 27. The method of claim 23 further comprising: generating the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view with the processor being provided in a computing system; and displaying the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view with a display device being provided in the computing system. Fig. 18 and 21.
Claim 28. The method of claim 27, wherein the computing system is a terminal of a healthcare provider. [0007]; [0041]; [0047]; [0060] – [0062]; [0209]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 5, 8, 16, 19, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan.
Claims 5 and 16. While Ryan discloses generating, with the processor, of the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view comprising: generating a plurality graphical elements including sub-connectors related to the patient’s current, first and prior visits during the patient’s treatment timeline Figs. 18 and 21, Ryan does not specifically teach generating a graphical indicator of a prescribed treatment that is prescribed during the first prior patient visit, wherein the first graphical connector further comprises a first sub-connector that connects the second graphical element of the first prior patient visit to the third graphical element and a second sub-connector that connects the third graphical element to the first graphical element of the current patient visit to indicate that the patient receives the prescribed treatment between the first prior patient visit and the current patient visit in the timeline view. However, Ryan’s system would perform the same function as required by the claimed invention regardless of a particular configuration of the displayed information. Thus, it appears to be an obvious matter of a design choice to display patient’s treatment related information in any desired configuration in accordance with preferences of service providers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ryan to include the recited limitation, for the benefit of addressing the preferences of the service providers. “Design choice applies when old elements in the prior art perform the same function as the now claimed structures”. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art”). “Relevant issue for design choice is whether the alleged differences between the claimed invention and the prior art "result in a difference in function or give unexpected results"” (citing In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965)).
Claims 8 and 19. The method of claim 1, the generating, with the processor, of the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view further comprising: generating a third graphical element including a graphical indicator of a recommendation for a prescribed treatment that is relevant to the first diagnosis; generating a second graphical connector between the first graphical element and the third graphical element, the second graphical connector indicating that the recommendation for the prescribed treatment is relevant to the first diagnosis. While Ryan discloses generating, with the processor, of the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view comprising: generating a plurality graphical elements and connectors related to the patient’s current, first and prior visits during the patient’s treatment timeline, medications, and recommendations Figs. 18 and 21; [0112]; [0190]; [0200]; [0209]; [0211], Ryan does not specifically teach displaying said generated information as specifically claimed. However, Ryan’s system would perform the same function as required by the claimed invention regardless of a particular configuration of the displayed information. Thus, it appears to be an obvious matter of a design choice to display patient’s treatment related information in any desired configuration in accordance with preferences of service providers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ryan to include the recited limitation, for the benefit of addressing the preferences of the service providers. “Design choice applies when old elements in the prior art perform the same function as the now claimed structures”. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art”). “Relevant issue for design choice is whether the alleged differences between the claimed invention and the prior art "result in a difference in function or give unexpected results"” (citing In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965)).
Claim 24. The method of claim 23 the generating, with the processor, of the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view further comprising: generating a second graphical element including a graphical indicator of a recommendation for a prescribed treatment that is relevant to the first prescribed diagnosis; generating a graphical connector between the first graphical element and the second graphical element, the graphical connector indicating that the recommendation for the prescribed treatment is relevant to the first diagnosis. While Ryan discloses generating, with the processor, of the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view comprising: generating a plurality (a first and a second) graphical elements, recommendations and connectors between displayed information during the patient’s treatment timeline, Figs. 18 and 21; [0112]; [0190]; [0200]; [0209]; [0211], Ryan does not specifically teach displaying said generated information as specifically claimed. However, Ryan’s system would perform the same function as the now claimed invention regardless of a particular configuration of the displayed information. Thus, it appears to be an obvious matter of a design choice to display patient’s treatment related information in any desired configuration in accordance with preferences of service providers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ryan to include the recited limitation, for the benefit of addressing the preferences of the service providers. “Design choice applies when old elements in the prior art perform the same function as the now claimed structures”. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art”). “Relevant issue for design choice is whether the alleged differences between the claimed invention and the prior art "result in a difference in function or give unexpected results"” (citing In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965)).
Claim 25. The method of claim 23, the generating, with the processor, of the graphical data corresponding to the timeline view further comprising: generating a second graphical element of a timeline that indicates a date of the initial patient visit.
While Ryan discloses generating a second graphical element of a timeline and dates of each patient visit, Figs. 18 and 21, Ryan does not specifically teach displaying said generated information as specifically claimed. However, Ryan’s system would perform the same function as the now claimed invention regardless of a particular configuration of the displayed information. Thus, it appears to be an obvious matter of a design choice to display patient’s treatment related information in any desired configuration in accordance with preferences of service providers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ryan to include the recited limitation, for the benefit of addressing the preferences of the service providers. “Design choice applies when old elements in the prior art perform the same function as the now claimed structures”. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art”). “Relevant issue for design choice is whether the alleged differences between the claimed invention and the prior art "result in a difference in function or give unexpected results"” (citing In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965)).
Claims 6-7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan in view of Iyer et al. (US 2023/0041220 A1).
Claims 6 and 17. While Ryan discloses displaying patient’s medical data including a prescribed treatment [0011]; [0134]; [0200]; [0239], Ryan does not specifically teach: generating the third graphical element including a graphical indicator identifying that the prescribed treatment was manually selected by a healthcare provider, which is disclosed or suggested in Iyer et al. (Iyer) (displaying searchable doctors or nurses notes; displaying indications of times at which notes related to a given term were recorded) Figs. 1P-1V; [0052] (Provisional app. No. 63/203,990 filed on Aug. 5, 2021)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ryan to include the recited limitations, as disclosed or suggested in Iyer, because it would advantageously allow to
remotely monitor patients, and to capture one or more types of biometric data associated with a patient and obtain, via a user interface, an indication of the health condition of the patient based on the information provided by a particular doctor or nurse, as specifically stated in Iyer. [0013]; [0052]
Claims 7 and 18. The method of claim 5, the generating, with the processor, of the third graphical element further comprising: generating the third graphical element including a graphical sub-element corresponding to a clinical note associated with the prescribed treatment. Ryan, Figs. 18 and 21; [0134]; [0239]; Iyer, [0047]; [0052]; [0053]; [0064]; [0065]. Same rationale as applied to claims 6 and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Example 37, claim 1 argument, claim 1 of the Example requires the step of “automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use”. This step cannot be performed in the mind, because it requires a processor accessing memory to track the usage of the memory. Therefore, claim 1 of the Example as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application.
Contrary to claim 1 of the Example 37, the claims at issue are directed to the abstract idea of receiving medical data of a patient, and displaying on a user interface of a treatment history for a patient over time, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. Please see a discussion above.
Regarding Enfish argument, it is noted that in Enfish, Court found that claims are directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, - a particular database technique - in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. There is no technological improvement described in the current application; the recited steps do not improve the functioning of computers itself, including of the processor(s) or the network elements; do not recite physical improvements in the claim, like a faster processor or more efficient memory, and do not provide operational improvement, like mathematical computation that improve the functioning of the computer. The claimed invention merely utilizes conventional computing and network elements for receiving, comparing, storing and outputting data. The conclusion that the pending claims of the instant invention are not directed to an improvement of an existing technology is bolstered by the Specification teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits, such as “provide clinical information … in an efficient manner that reduces cognitive load” (Specification, [0003]). Thus, the current application’ solution to the problem of reducing cognitive load is not technological, but business solution, or entrepreneurial. Therefore, the claims at issue do not provide a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology, but, instead, is directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.
Regarding Desjardins argument, in Desjardins the Specification identifies improvements in training the machine learning model itself, such as "effectively learn new tasks in succession whilst protecting knowledge about previous tasks," and that the claimed improvement allows artificial intelligence (AI) systems to "us[e] less of their storage capacity" and enables "reduced system complexity." And claim 1 in Desjardins, when evaluated as a whole, reflects said improvement: "adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task." Therefore, said recitation constitutes an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates, and, when considered as a whole, integrates an abstract idea into a practical application.
The Examiner notes that the current application is not related to the problems viewed in Desjardins, - there is no artificial intelligence and/or machine learning technology issues here. Regardless, contrary to Desjardins, the current claims do not improve the operation, efficiency, or functionality of machine learning models, e.g., handling continual learning, reducing resource use, or solving specific technical problems like catastrophic forgetting.
Regarding Core Wireless argument, claims in Core Wireless are directed to an improved user interface configured to present “an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu,” specifying a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed. In Core Wireless the claimed device improves the efficiency of using the electronic device by bringing together “a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data,” which can be accessed directly from the main menu. Id. at 2:55–59. Displaying selected data or functions of interest in the summary window allows the user to see the most relevant data or functions “without actually opening the application up.” Id. at 3:53–55. The speed of a user’s navigation through various views and windows can be improved because it “saves the user from navigating to the required application, opening it up, and then navigating within that application to enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated.” Id. at 2:35–39. Rather than paging through multiple screens of options, “only three steps may be needed from start up to reaching the required data/functionality.” Id. at 3:2–3.
Contrary to Core Wireless, the claims of the current application fails to disclose similar functionality. The pending claims require merely presenting graphical elements corresponding to diagnosis or other medical information. There is no an improved interface disclosed comprising a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data, the claims merely use a generic display for outputting health related information.
Regarding the argument that the claim is still patent eligible because recites elements that are not merely well-understood, routine, conventional activity under Step 2B, the Examiner maintains that the pending claims do not involve a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces by receiving information from an external source of data. The receiving of data from an external source over a network, and outputting can fairly be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity that does not receive patentable weight. See Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d sub nom Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity). Similar to Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014): “And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”
Also, the pending claims do not recite any improvement in computer-related technology; there is no improvements in the operation of a computer or a computer network per se, there is no improvements claimed as a set of ‘rules’ (basically mathematical relationships) that improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer. The claimed steps of receiving data; and generating a graphical indicator and a graphical sub-element represent a collection of conventional steps performed by a computer - receiving data, manipulating data, and outputting manipulated data on a conventional display. Claim 23 does not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the recited steps on a set of generic computer components and display devices. Nothing in the claim, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, calculating and presenting the desired information. Said computing elements are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of a computer, such as performing a mathematical operation and receiving and outputting data, that would be needed to apply the abstract idea via computer.
Regarding the novelty argument, the analysis under Alice step one is whether the claims as a whole are “directed to” an abstract idea, regardless of whether the prior art demonstrates that the idea or other aspects of the claim are known, unknown, conventional, unconventional, routine, or not routine. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188–89 (1981) (“The ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.”); Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. NeapCo Holdings LLC, 939 F.3d 1355, 1362 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[I]t makes no difference to the section 101 analysis whether the use of [ineligible subject matter] was known in the prior art.”); Data Engine, 906 F.3d at 1011 (“The eligibility question is not whether anyone has ever used tabs to organize information. That question is reserved for §§ 102 and 103. The question of abstraction is whether the claim is ‘directed to’ the abstract idea itself.”).
Regarding the argument that the series of dates depicted in Ryan fails to teach or suggest the graphical elements with graphical sub-elements and connectors of claim 1, and that the title shown in the window “Diabetes condition” is clearly not a graphical element in a timeline view, the Examiner maintains that Ryan explicitly discloses said limitations. For instance, Fig. 18 depicts the longitudinal record 1810 including a timeline 1822, a potential complications viewing area 1830, a medication list area 1840, and an education area 1850. Said timeline view 1822 that provides all the medical information associated with a patient, regarding at least one medical condition, and may include information across all providers and/or across all venues. Said interactive timeline is shown with a plurality of graphical elements. E.g., a popup medical information window 1824 details a random blood glucose measurement, also shown as a plurality of graphical elements.
PNG
media_image1.png
671
895
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant does not explain why graphical elements disclosed in Ryan are not the same as being claimed.
Remaining Applicant’s arguments essentially repeat the arguments presented above; therefore, the responses presented by the Examiner above are equally applicable to the remaining Applicant’s arguments.
Citations of pertinent art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Heywood et al. - US 2013/0066652 A1 - discloses patient medical condition parameters; diagnosis and disease stage; disease progression rate; medical outcomes; a GUI including charts; predictions concerning the patient’s future medical conditions
Morita et al. - US 2008/0208631 A1 - discloses a GUI containing a timeline representation of a patient record; graphical symbols for medical events; graphical representations of encounters and diagnoses.
Plaisant et al. “LifeLines: Using Visualization to Enhance Navigation and Analysis of Patient Records” PMID: 9929185 PMCID: PMC2232192; 1998; pp. 76-80, discloses a one-screen graphical overview of patient records using timelines. Depicts laboratory tests; medications; medical conditions; horizontal timelines; graphical icons, and relationships between medical events.
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 extension fee 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.
/IGOR N BORISSOV/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 8/26/2026
Prosecution Insights