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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for priority to the following application(s):
* 63607965 filed 08 December 08 2023
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1,3,5-8,11-13,15-17,19-21,26-27 and 29-30 in the reply filed on 25 February 2026 is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 image data from a computer application corresponding to a first user interface;
comparing data corresponding to the obtained image data to a corresponding reference database to determine a conditional state corresponding to at least a portion of the obtained image data; and
electronically displaying one or more indicia responsive to the conditional state on an electronic display to the user,
wherein comparing the data corresponding to the obtained image data to the corresponding reference database to determine a conditional state corresponding to at least a portion of the obtained image data 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, 26, 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 image data from a computer application corresponding to a first user interface;
electronically displaying one or more indicia responsive to the conditional state on an electronic display to the user.
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 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 26 reciting receiving data from an API, 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 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 26 reciting receiving data from an API, Official Notice is taken that providing data through an API is old and well-known in the art of computer programming; 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 § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 11-13, 15-17, 19-20, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Schoenberg.
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 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 data corresponding to the obtained image data to a corresponding reference database to determine 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
electronically displaying one or more indicia responsive to the conditional state on an electronic display to the user (Figure 6 label 188, 190 illustrating displaying or blocking various portions of the patient’s medical record based on the permission level),
wherein comparing the data corresponding to the obtained image data to the corresponding reference database to determine a conditional state corresponding to at least a portion of the obtained image data 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).
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 displaying 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 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 displaying 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 data corresponding to 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 , 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 comparing the data corresponding to 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 (Figure 6 illustrating downloading patient record, page 3 paragraph 0040 illustrating using SSL encryption to send/receive data over network);
wherein comparing the data corresponding to the obtained image data to a corresponding reference database to determine a conditional state corresponding to the at least a portion of the obtained image data is performed by a 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 comparing the data corresponding to the obtained image data to the corresponding reference database to determine 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 that 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 determined 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 17: Schoenberg discloses:
The computer method for augmenting the graphical user interface of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Schoenberg further discloses:
wherein comparing the data corresponding to the obtained image data to the corresponding reference database to determine the conditional state corresponding to the portion of the image data includes determining that the portion of the obtained image data corresponds to a data field that is required to be provided by the user and that a preferred practice corresponds to filling fields in a preferred order (Figure 5 label 162 illustrating displaying fields in a preferred order top to bottom);
wherein the one or more indicia includes a guided form completion pattern (page 4 paragraph 0054 illustrating specific types of data fields for the user to enter [considered to be a form of “guided form”]); 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 data field value that is required to be provided by the user and that the preferred practice indicates should be filled in a given order (Figure 5 illustrating that the fields are displayed top to bottom for the user to fill in).
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 comparing the data corresponding to the obtained image data to the corresponding reference database includes comparing the data corresponding to the obtained image data to a reference database corresponding 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 comparing the data corresponding to the obtained image data to the corresponding reference database includes comparing the data corresponding to the obtained image data to a reference database corresponding 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 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) 6, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenberg 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 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) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenberg in view of Official Notice.
Claim 26: 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 the image data includes receiving user interface data (Figure 6 illustrating obtaining patient records data)
wherein the user interface data includes at least one selected from the group consisting of one or more field names (page 4 paragraph 0054 illustrating field names), one or more field locations (this limitation is rendered optional by the limitation “at least one” and therefore need not be disclosed by , one or more button locations and labels (Figure 6 illustrating field names), one or more menu options, and one or more instances of field content (Figure 6 illustrating field contents).
Schoenberg does not disclose:
via an accessibility application programming interface (API).
Official Notice is taken that providing data via an API is old and well known in the art of computer programming.
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 Officially noticed facts within the system of Schoenberg with the motivation of improving patient care by leveraging existing and known software techniques to provide data processing efficiency.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenberg in view of DeFrancesco (20200082930).
Claim 30: 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 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 data corresponding to 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 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).
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