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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1,3,5-8,11-13,15-17,19-21,26-27 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
A computer method for augmenting a graphical user interface of a computer application, comprising:
obtaining, by one or more processors, image data from a computer application corresponding to a first user interface, said image data including pixel values produced by the computer application for rendering on an electronic display;
comparing, by the one or more processors, the obtained image data to data in a corresponding reference database;
determining from the comparison, via the one or more processors, a conditional state corresponding to at least a portion of the obtained image data; and
modifying the first user interface by causing presentation to the user, on the electronic display, of one or more indicia responsive to the conditional state,
wherein said comparing the obtained image data to the corresponding reference database includes determining that the at least a portion of the obtained image data corresponds to protected information that is not required by the user in a current context.
Step 1:
The claim as a whole falls within at least one statutory category, i.e. a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A Prong One:
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” because the steps of viewing an image and determining if a user requires certain information are traditionally performed by a human being when handling sensitive documents such as a patient record, i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Mental processes”.
But for a generic computer recited with a high level of generality in a post hoc manner to implement the abstract idea, the steps of viewing an image and determining if a user requires certain information may be practically performed in the human mind either mentally or with pen and paper.
Accordingly, these limitations have been found to be directed towards concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The different categories of abstract ideas are being considered together as one single abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(II)(B)
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim(s) 7-8, 11-13, 15-17, 19-21, 29-30 reciting limitations further defining the abstract idea, which may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components, and/or may be a method of managing relationship or interactions between people).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s), if any:
obtaining, by one or more processors, image data from a computer application corresponding to a first user interface, said image data including pixel values produced by the computer application for rendering on an electronic display;
modifying the first user interface by causing presentation to the user, on the electronic display, of one or more indicia responsive to the conditional state,
The additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se.
The step of receiving an image comprising pixels and display data merely add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application). MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which amount to limitation(s) consistent with the additional element(s) in the independent claims (such as claim 30 reciting using AI in a generic manner, additional limitation(s) which amount(s) to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea; claim(s) 3, 5, 15-17 reciting displaying data, claims 6, 27 recites screen scraping, claim 11-12 recites encrypting data, claims 12-13 reciting sending data over a network, claim 21 reciting a display buffer, claim 29 reciting recording keystrokes on a computer, additional limitation(s) which add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, e.g. to mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated).
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 and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The additional elements, as discussed above and incorporated herein, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking to a particular technological environment using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The step of receiving data amount(s) to element(s) that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity in particular fields (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii))
Regarding the use of pixels to represent a computer image, Pilz (20020064306) disclose that conventional image processing uses pixels to represent value pairs of a Cartesian coordinate X-Y in a manner that would be WURC in the pertinent fields (page 1 paragraph 0011).
Regarding the step of displaying data, Boston (201600193460) discloses that displaying a medical record is WURC in the pertinent fields (page 9 paragraph 0085).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claim(s) 3, 5, 15-17 reciting displaying data, Boston discloses that displaying a medical record is WURC in the pertinent fields (page 9 paragraph 0085); claims 6, 27 recites screen scraping, Gaziano (20150081331) discloses that screen scraping is WURC (page 2-3 paragraph 0034); claim 11-12 recites encrypting data, Schoenberg (20050125435) discloses SSL encrypting being WURC (page 3 paragraph 0040); claims 12-13 reciting sending data over a network, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claim 21 reciting a display buffer, McKnight (5880814) disclosing that convention video circuitry comprises video buffer (column 12 line 1-7); claim 29 reciting recording keystrokes on a computer, Schoenberg disclosing a computer with a keyboard for the user to enter keystrokes into the keyboard (Figure 1 label 32)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii))
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.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 11-13, 15-16, 19-20, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenberg in view of Akbulut (20170228292).
Claim 1: Schoenberg discloses:
A computer (Figure 1 illustrating a computer) method (Abstract illustrating a method) for augmenting a graphical user interface of a computer application (Figure 6 illustrating providing data for display on a computer interface [considered to be a form of “augmenting”]), comprising:
obtaining, by one or more processors, image data from a computer application corresponding to a first user interface (Figure 6 illustrating receiving a display image comprising the patient’s medical record for display),
comparing, by the one or more processors, the obtained image data to data in a corresponding reference database (page 4 paragraph 0051 illustrating comparing the user’s permission level to the patient’s record to determine which type of data the user is permitted to view [considered to be a form of “conditional state”]);
determining from the comparison, via the one or more processors, a conditional state corresponding to at least a portion of the obtained image data (page 4 paragraph 0051 illustrating comparing the user’s permission level to the patient’s record to determine which type of data the user is permitted to view [considered to be a form of “conditional state”]); and
modifying the first user interface by causing presentation to the user, on the electronic display, of one or more indicia responsive to the conditional state (Figure 6 illustrating displaying the viewable data for the patient),
wherein said comparing the obtained image data to the corresponding reference database includes determining that the at least a portion of the obtained image data corresponds to protected information that is not required by the user in a current context (page 4 paragraph 0051 illustrating determining that the user does not need to view certain portions of the patient’s record).
Schoenberg does not disclose:
said image data including pixel values produced by the computer application for rendering on an electronic display.
Akbulut discloses:
said image data including pixel values produced by the computer application for rendering on an electronic display (page 2-3 paragraph 0027 illustrating storing medical records as images and pixel patterns, page 4 paragraph 0049 illustrating performing OCR to convert image data into text).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the OCR of Akbulut within the patient record system of Schoenberg with the motivation of improving patient care by leveraging existing technology to process patient data stored as images (Akbulut; page 1 paragraph 0004).
Claim 3: Schoenberg discloses:
The computer method for augmenting the graphical user interface of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Schoenberg further discloses:
wherein said presentation of the one or more indicia includes displaying, on the electronic display, at least a portion of the first user interface and displaying the one or more indicia over or merged with the first user interface (Figure 6 illustrating striking out various portions of the patient record [considered to be “over or merged” with the display).
Claim 5: Schoenberg discloses:
The computer method for augmenting the graphical user interface of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Schoenberg further discloses:
wherein said presentation of the one or more indicia includes displaying, on the electronic display, a portion of the first user interface and displaying the one or more indicia registered to an input field of the first user interface (Figure 8 illustrating providing text field for the user to enter data related to the patient’s record).
Claim 7: Schoenberg discloses:
The computer method for augmenting the graphical user interface of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Schoenberg further discloses:
thinning the obtained image data to produce thinned image data (page 3 paragraph 0042 illustrating providing a text string for the record [considered to be a form of “thinning”]);
wherein comparing the obtained image data to the corresponding reference database includes comparing the thinned image data to the corresponding reference database (page 3 paragraph 0044 illustrating comparing the string with data for the patient stored on the database).
Claim 8: Schoenberg discloses:
The computer method for augmenting the graphical user interface of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Schoenberg further discloses:
wherein thinning the obtained image data includes at least one of removing image data that is peripheral to fillable fields in the image data (Figure 6 illustrating striking out a portion of the record), converting fillable fields from a graphical representation to a character-based representation, and only obtaining image data when the image data changes (these limitations are rendered optional by the limitation “at least one of” and therefore need not be disclosed by the applied art).
Claim 11: Schoenberg discloses:
The computer method for augmenting the graphical user interface of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Schoenberg further discloses:
further comprising:
encrypting the thinned image data to produce encrypted image data (page 3 paragraph 0040 illustrating encrypting data using SSL);
wherein the corresponding reference database includes corresponding encrypted reference data (page 3 paragraph 0040 illustrating using SSL for data communications); and
wherein said comparing the obtained image data to the corresponding reference database includes comparing the encrypted image data to the corresponding encrypted reference data (page 3 paragraph 0040 illustrating using SSL to process data sent and received over the network).
Claim(s) 12 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 11 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
In particular, Schoenberg discloses using SSL to send and receive data over the network for further processing (page 3 paragraph 0040), such as in accordance with Figure 4-6, for example.
Claim 13: Schoenberg discloses:
The computer method for augmenting the graphical user interface of claim 11, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Schoenberg further discloses:
further comprising:
downloading the encrypted reference data to a local computing device configured to drive the electronic display (Figure 6 illustrating downloading patient record, page 3 paragraph 0040 illustrating using SSL encryption to send/receive data over network);
wherein said comparing the encrypted image data to the corresponding encrypted reference data is performed by the local computing device configured to drive the electronic display (Figure 6 illustrating a user’s computer, see also Figure 1 label 32).
Claim 15: Schoenberg discloses:
The computer method for augmenting the graphical user interface of claim 11, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Schoenberg further discloses:
wherein the protected information is protected health information (PHI) (Figure 6 illustrating PHI);
wherein the one or more indicia includes an obscuration pattern (Figure 6 illustrating striking out portions of patient records [considered to be a form of “obscuration pattern”]); and
wherein displaying the one or more indicia responsive to the conditional state includes displaying the obscuration pattern registered to and over or in place of the PHI that is not required by the user in the current context (Figure 6 illustrating striking out portions of the record).
Claim 16: Schoenberg discloses:
The computer method for augmenting the graphical user interface of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Schoenberg further discloses:
wherein said comparing the obtained image data to the corresponding reference database and determining the conditional state corresponding to the at least a portion of the obtained image data includes determining that the portion of the image data corresponds to a data field value does not match a corresponding reference data field value (page 4 paragraph 0051 illustrating comparing the user’s key with the key database);
wherein the one or more indicia includes a data mismatch alert pattern (page 4 paragraph 0051 illustrating not permitting access to portions of the patient’s record); and
wherein electronically displaying the one or more indicia responsive to the conditional state includes displaying the data mismatch alert pattern registered to and adjacent to the portion of the obtained image data corresponding to the data field value that does not match the corresponding reference data field value (page 4 paragraph 0051, Figure 6 illustrating striking out portions of the record not available to the user [considered to be a form of “adjacent”]).
Claim 19: Schoenberg discloses:
The computer method for augmenting the graphical user interface of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Schoenberg further discloses:
wherein the reference database corresponds to a plurality of application display screens (Figure 2 label 62, 64, 66 illustrating a plurality of patient records displayed on various screens and stored on a database 52).
Claim 20: Schoenberg discloses:
The computer method for augmenting the graphical user interface of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Schoenberg further discloses:
wherein the reference database corresponds to at least one respective display screen from a plurality of computer applications (Figure 2 label 62, 64, 66 illustrating a plurality of patient records displayed on various screens and stored on a database 52).
Claim 29: Schoenberg discloses:
The computer method for augmenting the graphical user interface of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Schoenberg further discloses:
further comprising:
keylogging a local computing device (Figure 1 label 32 illustrating a keyboard for the user to type into); and
using the keylogged data to infer data entered into an application data field (Figure 1 label 32, Figure 5, 8 illustrating entering the data typed by the user into the data field on the form).
Claim(s) 6, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenberg in view of Akbulut as applied to parent claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaziano.
Claim 6: Schoenberg discloses:
The computer method for augmenting the graphical user interface of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Schoenberg does not disclose:
wherein obtaining image data includes performing capture of a momentary display produced by the computer application to create a screen-scraped image.
Gaziano discloses:
wherein obtaining image data includes performing capture of a momentary display produced by the computer application to create a screen-scraped image (page 2-3 paragraph 0034 illustrating using screen scraping to obtain patient data).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the screen scrape of Gaziano within the system of Schoenberg in view of Akbulut with the motivation of improving patient care by streamlining the sharing of patient data without the need for excessive permission logins (Gaziano; page 1 paragraph 0007-0008).
Claim(s) 27 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 6 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenberg in view of Akbulut as applied to parent claim 1 above, and further in view of Bissell (20200250550).
Claim 17: Schoenberg does not disclose:
wherein said comparing the obtained image data to the corresponding reference database and determining the conditional state corresponding to the portion of the image data includes determining that the portion of the obtained image data corresponds to one or more data field values that are required to be filled by the user and that a preferred practice corresponds to filling fields in a preferred order;
wherein the one or more indicia includes a guided form completion pattern; and
wherein electronically displaying the one or more indicia responsive to the conditional state includes displaying the guided form completion pattern registered to and adjacent to the portion of the image data corresponding to the one or more data field values that are required to be provided by the user and that the preferred practice indicates should be filled in a given order.
Bissell discloses:
wherein said comparing the obtained image data to the corresponding reference database and determining the conditional state corresponding to the portion of the image data includes determining that the portion of the obtained image data corresponds to one or more data field values that are required to be filled by the user and that a preferred practice corresponds to filling fields in a preferred order (Figure 4 illustrating a fill order for a form);
wherein the one or more indicia includes a guided form completion pattern (Figure 4 label 410 illustrating form completion guidance); and
wherein electronically displaying the one or more indicia responsive to the conditional state includes displaying the guided form completion pattern registered to and adjacent to the portion of the image data corresponding to the one or more data field values that are required to be provided by the user and that the preferred practice indicates should be filled in a given order (Figure 4 illustrating required values and the order in which they should be completed).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the form fill guidance of Bissell within the system of Schoenberg in view of Akbulut with the motivation of improving patient care by leveraging existing technology to guide a user to complete a form (Bissell; page 1 paragraph 0003).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenberg in view of Akbulut as applied to parent claim 1 above, and further in view of McKnight.
Claim 21: Schoenberg does not disclose:
wherein obtaining the image data includes reading the image data from a display buffer.
McKnight discloses:
wherein obtaining the image data includes reading the image data from a display buffer (column 12 line 1-7 disclosing extracting a pixelated image from a video buffer).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the video buffer of McKnight within the system of Schoenberg in view of Akbulut with the motivation of improving patient care by leveraging known image capturing techniques (McKnight; column 1 line 15-20).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenberg in view of Akbulut as applied to parent claim 11 above, and further in view of DeFrancesco (20200082930).
Claim 30: Schoenberg discloses:
The computer method for augmenting the graphical user interface of claim 11, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Schoenberg does not disclose:
wherein the reference data or encrypted reference data includes an artificial intelligence training set; and
wherein comparing data corresponding to the obtained image data to the corresponding reference database includes running the artificial intelligence to determine the conditional state.
DeFrancesco discloses:
wherein the reference data or encrypted reference data includes an artificial intelligence training set (page 25 paragraph 0291 illustrating using AI to process medical images); and
wherein comparing the obtained image data to the corresponding reference database includes running the artificial intelligence to determine the conditional state (page 25 paragraph 0291 illustrating using AI to process medical images to make a determination).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the AI of DeFrancesco within the system of Schoenberg in view of Akbulut with the motivation of improving patient care by applying known AI and machine learning techniques to a patient’s image (DeFrancesco; page 1 paragraph 0004).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed on 08 July 2026, Applicant makes numerous arguments. Examiner will address these arguments in the order presented.
On page 8 Applicant argues that certain limitations are not properly considered abstract.
In response to applicant's argument, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., comparing bitmap data) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, the argument is not found persuasive because Applicant does not provide any reasoning beyond that the steps are tied to machines. The machine has been considered as part of the additional elements, but the highlighted limitations have been found to be directed towards an abstract, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
On page 8-9 Applicant argues that the collapsing of multiple abstract ideas into a single abstract idea without rigorous analysis is improper.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, the multiple abstract idea have been provided with reasoned rationale, as discussed in the section above and incorporated herein.
On page 9-10 Applicant argues that certain limitations are not practically performed in the human mind.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, they are directed towards at least some limitations that are part of the additional elements, such as displaying data or the use of a computer.
As such, they are not found to be persuasive because the highlighted portions are practically performed in the human mind either mentally or with pen and paper.
On page 11 Applicant makes similar arguments regarding Certain Methods of Human Activity enumerated category, and have been addressed above, and incorporated herein.
On page 10-11 Applicant argues that the claims improve a computer’s functioning.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, they lack nexus with the claims because the data processing is part of the abstract idea. The display merely provide insignificant extrasolution activity of display data. There is no technical improvement.
On page 11 Applicant argues that the claims recite a particular machine.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, Applicant provides no evidence of the particularity of the machine. Instead, the section above provides reasoned rational regarding the additional elements, and incorporated herein.
On page 11 Applicant argues that the Office ignored ordered combination.
As discussed in the section above and in the previous Office action, the additional elements have been considered both individually and as ordered combinations.
On page 12 Applicant argues that the obtaining and displaying steps are not extrasolution activity.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, Applicant provides no evidence of these limitations being technical improvements.
On page 12 Applicant similarly argues that the ordered combinations has not been addressed.
This argument has been carefully considered, but Applicant’s attention is directed to the section above and the previous Office action (addressing additional elements both individually and as ordered combinations).
On page 12 Applicant argues that Berkheimer evidence is inadequate.
The only limitation in question is the generic display of data; the argued limitations of processing data to determine accessibility are part of the abstract idea.
This argument has been carefully considered, but is not found persuasive because Boston clearly provides disclosure that displaying data in a graphic display is notoriously well-known.
On page 13 Applicant argues that the specific inventive concept has not been analyzed.
This argument has been carefully considered, but Applicant’s inventive concept of determining which portions of a patient’s record to display is part of the abstract idea, and therefor provides no inventive concept.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 17 on page 14-17 have been carefully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On page 17-18 Applicant argues that the applied art do not disclose a screen-scraped image.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, they are not found persuasive because the claim does specifically recite what kind of data is processed. Instead, the claim merely recites image data with pixel values; however, claim 6 within the context of claim 1 does not perform any additional data processing of the pixel values.
Therefore, the applied art fully meets the claimed limitation of scraping an image to generate data that could be used to further process patient data.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., redacting certain portions of an image for rendering of a redacted image) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On page 30 Applicant argues that the applied art do not disclose an AI training asset and running AI to determine a conditional state.
It is noted that the claim does not positively recite any technical steps regarding how the AI would process the image to provide the conditional state. Instead, the claim merely recites an outcome of AI processing of an image to generate a conditional state without any technical detail.
For this reason, the use of AI is prolific, as is evidence by the applied art. Therefore, using AI to automate machine learning is known, especially when recited generically without any technical details.
While Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered, they are not found persuasive for this reason.
Based on the evidence presented above, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marshall (20080133272) discloses processing a patient data profile (Abstract) in a manner similar to those disclosed in the instant pending Specification as originally filed.
Experton (20100269157) discloses authorizing access to a patient’s record (Abstract) in a manner similar to those disclosed in the instant pending Specification as originally filed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KAMBIZ ABDI can be reached on (571)272-6702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.N.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
