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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to applicant arguments filled on 09/04/2026 for application 19/013600.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 13, 18, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Detailed Action
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-20 are drawn to a method and system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1, 13, and 20 11 recite determining a first update to a first electronic health record; determining that the first update comprises a first genetic indication; determining an association between the first electronic health record; generating a second update comprising a second disease indication; determining a third update to the first electronic health record comprising a third set of diagnostic information pertaining to the first patient; generating a fourth update to the second electronic health record comprising a third genetic disease indication corresponding to the second patient; .
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity by identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including a processor, which is additional element that is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims recite the additional element of applying the second update to the second electronic health record, and applying the fourth update to the second electronic health record, which is considered limitation directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed applying limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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.
Hence, the 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. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do 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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
Paragraph 21, where “The present invention might be operational with numerous other purpose computing system environments or configurations. Examples of well-known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that might be suitable for use with the present invention include personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices, wearable devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, distributed computing environments that include any of the above-mentioned systems or devices, and the like.”
Paragraph 56, where “In some embodiments, if an indication is received that the patient or family member has been ruled out as having the genetic disease, a record of the patient or family member may be updated in the healthcare system with no alerts. This indicates the patient or family member does not have genetic disease or probable genetic disease and may include removing the genetic disease icon or probable genetic disease icon from the EHR of the patient or family member of the patient.”
The claims recite the additional element of applying the second update to the second health record and applying the fourth update to the second health record, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-12 and 14-19 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoffman et al. (US 2005/0075794 A1)
In claim 1, one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, causes performance of operations comprising:
Hoffman teaches:
determining a first update to a first electronic health record corresponding to a first patient (Para. 69 wherein automated updates the patient records is taught);
determining that the first update comprises a first genetic disease indication corresponding to the first patient, the first genetic disease indication comprising a first set of diagnostic information pertaining to the first patient (Para. 69 wherein the update can comprise of a genetic relationships);
responsive to determining that the first update comprises the first genetic disease indication corresponding to the first patient:
determining an association between the first electronic health record corresponding to the first patient and a second electronic health record corresponding to a second patient, wherein the second patient has a familial relationship with the first patient (Para. 61 and 65 linking patients including familial linkage is taught);
based on (a) the first genetic disease indication and (b) the association between the first electronic health record and the second electronic health record:
generating a second update comprising a second genetic disease indication corresponding to the second patient, the second genetic disease indication comprising a second set of diagnostic information pertaining to the second patient (Para. 69 wherein “genetic test result for a patient may be used to trigger automated updates to the medical records of family members of the patient”);
applying the second update to the second electronic health record; (Para. 69).
Subsequent to applying the second update to the second electronic health record:
determining a third update to the first electronic health record comprising a third stet of diagnostic information pertaining to the first patient (Para. 69 wherein “genetic test result for a patient may be used to trigger automated updates to the medical records of family members of the patient”);
based on the third set of diagnostic information:
generating a fourth update to the second electronic health record comprising a third genetic disease indication corresponding to the second patient, wherein the third genetic disease indication supersedes the second genetic disease indication (Para. 69 wherein automated updates to family members can be triggered by updating the patient record);
applying the fourth update to the second electronic health record (Para. 69).
As per claim 2, Hoffman teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1, wherein determining the first update to the first electronic health record corresponding to the first patient comprises: receiving, from a first location, a notification of the first update; and processing the notification at a second location (Para. 401 and 69).
As per claim 3, Hoffman teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 2, wherein the first location comprises a first electronic health records system associated with a first healthcare system, and wherein the second location comprises a second electronic health records system associated with a second healthcare system (Para. 31 and 55 ).
As per claim 4, Hoffman teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
prior to determining the first update:
determining the familial relationship between the first patient and the second patient (Para. 40 and 54);
based on determining the familial relationship, generating the association between the first electronic health record and the second electronic health record (Para. 40 and 54).
As per claim 5, Hoffman teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 4, wherein generating the association between the first electronic health record and the second electronic health record comprises:
generating, in the first electronic health record, an identifier for identifying at least one of: the second patient, or the second electronic health record corresponding to the second patient (Para.40 and 54).
As per claim 6, Hoffman teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 5, wherein the operations further comprise: identifying the second electronic health record corresponding to the second patient based on the identifier in the first electronic health record (Para. 40 and 54).
As per claim 7, Hoffman teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1, wherein the third set of diagnostic information pertaining to the first patient comprises an indication that the first genetic disease indication comprises a misdiagnosis, and wherein the genetic disease indication comprises a correction, in the second electronic health record, of the second genetic disease indication. (Para. 69 wherein updates in the patient record can trigger updates to his/her family members).
As per claim 8, Hoffman teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determining the second set of diagnostic information pertaining to the second patient based at least in part on the first set of diagnostic information pertaining to the first patient (Para. 69).
As per claim 9, Hoffman teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
determining a fifth update to the second electronic health record comprising a fourth set of diagnostic information pertaining to the second patient (Para. 69);
based on the fourth set of diagnostic information,
generating a sixth update to the first electronic health record comprising a fourth genetic disease indication corresponding to the first patient, wherein the fourth genetic disease indication supersedes the first genetic disease indication (Para. 69);
applying the sixth update to the first electronic health record (Para. 69).
As per claim 10, Hoffman teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1, wherein the first genetic disease indication comprises a first genetic disease diagnosis by a first clinician for the first patient (Para. 69).
As per claim 11, Hoffman teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 10, wherein the second genetic disease indication comprises a genetic disease alert for the second patient based on the first genetic disease diagnosis by the first clinician for the first patient (Para. 69).
As per claim 12, Hoffman teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 10, wherein the second genetic disease indication comprises an order that assists a second clinician in determining whether the second patient is diagnosable with a second genetic disease diagnosis (Para. 30).
Claims 13-20 recite substantially similar limitations as seen above and hence are rejected for similar rationale as noted above.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues the 101 rejection. The Applicant argues that the claims integrate the contended judicial exception into a practical application because claim 1 provides a specific improvement to the functioning of EHR systems. The system in the claims utilizes the association between the patients’ electronic health records to generate an update to the other patient’s genetic disease indication that supersedes the prior indication. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Using association between patients to generate an update genetic disease indication that supersedes a prior indication specifies the information used and the resulting medical assessment. This does not explain how the claimed process improves the functioning of the EHR system. As presently claimed, the system serves as a tool for updating information, rather than implementing a technological improvement to the system itself.
Applicant arguments with respect to the art rejection are moot in view of new grounds of rejections necessitated by claim amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wood (US 2014/0100874 A1) teaches a method for displaying linked family health history on a computing device.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAROUN P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
MAROUN P. KANAAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/MAROUN P KANAAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights