DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is the first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 14 May 2025.
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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
This application claims priority of US Provisional Application No. 63/647572 filed on 14 May 2024. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of this prior filed application is acknowledged.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, which is representative of claims 8 and 15, recites: a
determining that orders are available for review based at least on a status of each of the orders, wherein each of the orders comprise a series of data entries in a table, the status of each of the orders is associated with at least one of the data entries, a unique identifier for each of the orders is associated with at least one of the data entries, and the series of data entries are stored in a production level data store;
for each of the orders, analyzing the data associated with each of the orders and data
for each of the orders, processing the list of flagged conditions, wherein the processing comprises: (i) correcting information within the series of data entries associated with an order in the production level data store, (ii) communicating internal notes pertaining to the information within the series of data entries associated with the order to the production level data store, (iii) updating a status of the order in a review log, (iv) sending one or more notifications to a user concerning one or more of the flagged conditions, the status of the order, or both, or (v) any combination thereof; and
for each of the orders, generating, based on the series of data entries in the table and the processing the list of flagged conditions, a final report comprising a summary of the series of data entries.
The preceding recitation of the claim has had strikethroughs applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea. The remaining limitations describe a concept of reviewing laboratory orders and generating a report. This concept describes a mental process that a lab worker should follow to report on quality control similar to the “mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) as an example of managing personal behavior in the methods of organizing human activity sub-grouping. As such, these limitation set forth a method of organizing human activity. Therefore the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
Claim 1 describes the method as computer implemented. Claim 8 recites the additional element of a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media. Claim 15 recites the additional element of one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. These additional elements are all recited at an extremely high level of generality, and may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of generating a set of queries based on one or more query programming languages and executing the set of queries on a database to retrieve data, and retrieving data. This additional element reflects no improvement to technology, does not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine, does not effect a transformation of an article, and does not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, this additional element only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of a computer. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of information defined in a configuration file. This additional element reflects no improvement to technology, does not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine, does not effect a transformation of an article, and does not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, this additional element only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of a computer. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of a computer. As such the combination of additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims are determined to be directed to the abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite the additional elements of generating a set of queries based on one or more query programming languages and executing the set of queries on a database to retrieve data, and retrieving data. However Ghosh et al. (US 2010/0057702 A1) demonstrates (“In conventional enterprise systems, searchable information may be retrieved by directly querying the data stores, such as where structured query language (SQL) commands” See at least [0033]) that such techniques were conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite the additional elements of information defined in a configuration file. Mu (US 2009/0259991 A1) demonstrates (“The solution in the conventional art has a unitary configuration source, namely, each configuration file stores the corresponding configuration information” [0008]) that such techniques were conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of a computer. As such the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considered individually and as a combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea, but the claims continue to recite an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 16 also further describes the additional element of the queries, but this additional element, individually and in combination with the other additional elements, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the same reasons indicated above. Dependent claims 4-7, 11-14, and 17-20 also recite the additional element of transmitting data to one of a client device, data store, and end point. These additional elements reflect no improvement to technology, do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine, do not effect a transformation of an article, and do not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, this additional element only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. Further, when considered in combination with the prior identified additional elements, the combination of additional elements only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, these dependent claims remain directed to an abstract idea. For Step 2B, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network to be a conventional computer function. As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, when considered in combination with the prior identified additional elements, the combination of additional elements only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. Thus these additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Because the dependent claims remain directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Cross et al. (US 2004/0030578 A1) and Parvin et al. (US 2010/0295685 A1) broadly describe automated quality review of laboratory testing.
Randazzo et al. (US 2007/0094227 A1) discusses rule based data flagging.
Jimenez et al. (US 2022/0036979 A1) discusses automated lab result review and verification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm EST.
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 at (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.
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2026-06-27
Prosecution Insights