DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed November 18, 2024 in which claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified independent system Claim 15 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claims 1 and 8.
The claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-14 are directed to the non-transitory computer readable medium and claims 15-20 are directed to a system which are one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 15 recites : a memory device containing stored instructions; a processing device communicatively coupled to the memory device, wherein the processing device executes the stored instructions to: receive, from a second node of the one or more nodes, a request to perform a transaction on the distributed ledger, wherein the transaction involves a medical record stored in the distributed ledger, wherein the request includes an organization type of an entity associated with the second node, a transaction type of the transaction, and a use type for the transaction; determine whether the use type for the transaction is permitted for the organization type of the entity; and responsive to determining the use type for the transaction is permitted for the organization type of the entity: execute a function defined for the organization type and the transaction type to perform the transaction on the distributed ledger; and update the distributed ledger with the transaction at the one or more nodes. These limitations (with the exception of italicized portions), when considered collectively as an ordered combination, is a process that covers Certain methods of organizing human activity such as Commercial or legal interaction and Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People (following rules or instructions). The concept of approving use of medical records is a commercial or legal interaction. The claim also recites a memory device, a processing device, a second node of the one or more nodes and the distributed ledger which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, a memory device, a processing device, a second node of the one or more nodes and the distributed ledger, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 15 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of a memory device, a processing device, a second node of the one or more nodes and the distributed ledger result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The specification describes the additional elements of a memory device, a processing device, a second node of the one or more nodes and the distributed ledger to be generic computer elements (see [0057], [0066]). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements of a memory device, a processing device, a second node of the one or more nodes and the distributed ledger are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
The claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a memory device, a processing device, a second node of the one or more nodes and the distributed ledger are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, claim 15 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Similar arguments can he extended to other independent claims 1 and 8 and hence the claims 1 and 8 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 15. In addition, claim 8 also recites a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium that amounts to generic computer implementation.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only narrow the abstract idea further and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 do not recite any new additional elements that are not present in independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Viewing the claim limitations as a combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as a combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curbera et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number (2018/0082024 A1) in view of Saliman et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number (2020/0005912 A1).
Regarding Claim 15,
Curbera teaches a first node of one or more nodes of a network of a distributed ledger system, comprising (See at least Abstract, Fig. 1, [0091-0092]):
a memory device containing stored instructions (See at least Abstract, Fig. 1, [0091-0092]);
a processing device communicatively coupled to the memory device, wherein the processing device executes the stored instructions to:
receive, from a second node of the one or more nodes (See at least Abstract, Fig. 1, [0091-0092]), a request to perform a transaction on the distributed ledger, wherein the transaction involves a medical record stored in the distributed ledger (See at least [0009-0010], [0090-0091], “The ledgers stored in the ledger storage 129 are implemented as an append-only data structures and thus, provide a distributed system of recording for all patient information transactions in the healthcare network”), wherein the request includes an organization type of an entity associated with the second node (See at least [0042], [0046], [0084], [0092], [0130], “the distributed patient CIMS 120 establishes membership before engaging a participant, i.e. a node such as one of the servers 104. Each participant must provide credentials (through a valid authentication mechanism) in order to interact with the distributed healthcare system and thus, distributed patient CIMS”),
a transaction type of the transaction (See at least [0083], [0098-0100], “the input question may in fact be formatted or structured as any suitable type of request which may be parsed and analyzed using structured and/or unstructured input analysis”), and a use type for the transaction (See at least [0094], [0098-0099], [0104], “In particular, the protocol logic 227 records patient information release requests, sent by a health provider, which are matched against the consent record of the patient stored in the consent and data exchange ledger 223”);
determine whether the use type for the transaction is permitted for the organization type of the entity (See at least [0094], [0098-0099], [0104], “If consent is available, e.g., already indicated as granted it he consent record, the request is approved and the exchange of the patient information is initiated. If not, a notification and consent request is sent to the patient, via the patient's associated computing device, who can initiate the consent granting protocol and permit the patient information data exchange to continue”);
update the distributed ledger with the transaction at the one or more nodes
([0013], [0047], [0090],[0091), [0098], “data exchange ledger 223 is updated assuming all of the participant node devices validate the request”).
However, Curbera does not explicitly teach,
responsive to determining the use type for the transaction is permitted for the organization type of the entity: execute a function defined for the organization type and the transaction type to perform the transaction on the distributed ledger ;
Saliman, however, teaches,
responsive to determining the use type for the transaction is permitted for the organization type of the entity: execute a function defined for the organization type and the transaction type to perform the transaction on the distributed ledger (See at least [0045], “a smart contract may be a computer protocol, or code, that represents a contract that may be digitally partially, or wholly, self-executing and/or self-enforcing upon performance of one or more conditions or transactions (e.g., performance of one or more steps of process 300) without the need for a third party. A smart contract may use or incorporate a smart contract computer language, as may be compatible with a blockchain and/or distributed ledger like distributed ledger and/or blockchain 110.”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Curbera to incorporate the disclosure of Saliman. The motivation for combining these references would have been to provide secure, transparent and decentralized transactions without the need for a central authority by utilizing the distributed ledger (Saliman, [0004]).
Regarding Claim 2,
Curbera further teaches,
wherein determining whether the use type for the transaction is permitted for the organization type of the entity further comprises:
determining, based on one or more medical records maintained in the distributed ledger, an actual use type for the transaction (See at least [0093], [0133], [0135], “the transactions involving the exchange of patient information or data.” Patient information or data can be interpreted as including the actual use type of the transaction);
determining whether the actual use type for the transaction is permitted for the organization type of the entity (See at least [0093], [0133], [0135], “the consent includes data segmentation enabling categorization of patient information, or health data, into segments, allowing partial sharing of patient information /data”. The consent including data segmentation enabling categorization of patient information can be interpreted as determining whether the actual use type for the transaction is permitted for the organization type of the entity);
responsive to determining that the actual use type for the transaction is not permitted, blocking the transaction (See at least [0093], [0133], [0135], “ a patient may visit a doctor where the patient information for the type of visit is generally considered non-sensitive, but the patient may reveal some sensitive patient information that is recorded and that data may be tagged, such as through the patient information separation mechanisms described above, to be associated with an indicator of sensitive patient information and thus, requiring consent for access.” Requiring consent for access for sensitive patient information can be interpreted as blocking the transaction).
Regarding Claim 3,
Curbera further teaches,
wherein determining whether the use type for the transaction is permitted for the organization type of the entity further comprise:
determining, based on one or more medical records maintained in the distributed ledger and situational information associated with the request, an actual use type for the transaction (See at least [0093], [0133], [0135-0136], “the transactions involving the exchange of patient information or data.” Patient information or data can be interpreted as including the actual use type of the transaction).
Regarding Claim 4,
Curbera further teaches,
responsive to determining the actual use type for the transaction is permitted, the method further comprising: endorsing, based on the actual use type of the transaction, the transaction (See at least [0042], “government agencies at different levels use legal, regulatory and funding mechanisms to enable different medical record exchange technologies.” Enabling different medical record exchange technologies is equivalent to endorsing the transaction).
Regarding Claim 5,
Curbera further teaches,
wherein the transaction involves transferring the medical record to another entity associated with a second node of the one or more nodes, and the method further comprises:
retrieving the medical record from the distributed ledger (See at least [0115-0116], “retrieve comprehensive reports of patient information release and consent so as to ensure health provider compliance with regulations”);
transferring the medical record to the other entity (See at least [0089], record transfer);
updating the distributed ledger by adding a block to the distributed ledger, wherein the block stores a record of the transaction (See at least [0040-0041], “A blockchain - like based system uses a hash metadata protocol to keep track of record integrity and updates across the system.”).
Regarding Claim 6,
Curbera further teaches,
wherein the transaction involves updating one or more properties of the medical record, and the method further comprises:
retrieving the medical record from the distributed ledger (See at least [0115-0116], “retrieve comprehensive reports of patient information release and consent so as to ensure health provider compliance with regulations”);
updating the one or more properties of the medical record (See at least [0114-0115], “health providers can directly update the MPRI with new information about the location of the patient information, e.g., EMRs, as the new patient information is generated”);
updating the distributed ledger by adding a block to the distributed ledger, wherein the block stores a record of the transaction and the updated medical record (See at least [0040-0041], [0093], [0133], [0135], “A blockchain - like based system uses a hash metadata protocol to keep track of record integrity and updates across the system.”).
Regarding Claim 7,
Curbera further teaches,
wherein the one or more nodes represent a plurality of organization types and each organization type of the plurality of organization types (see at least [0042], [0046], [0084], [0092], [0130]) is permitted to perform a transaction from a set of transaction types for a use type from a set of use types (see at least [0083], [0098-0100]).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8,
Independent claims 1 and 8 are substantially similar to independent claim 15, and hence rejected on similar grounds. In addition, claim 8 also recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (See at least [0032]) which is taught by Curbera.
Regarding Claims 9 and 16,
Claims 9 and 16 are substantially similar to claim 2, and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claims 10 and 17,
Claims 10 and 17 are substantially similar to claim 3, and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claims 11 and 18,
Claims 11 and 18 are substantially similar to claim 4, and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claims 12 and 19,
Claims 12 and 19 are substantially similar to claim 5, and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claims 13 and 20,
Claims 13 and 20 are substantially similar to claim 6, and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 7, and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Examiner Request
6. The Applicant is request to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVIN SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2981. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694