DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the response to election/restriction filed on June 30, 2026. Invention I (claims 1-12) has been elected. Invention II (claims 13-15) and Invention III (claims 16-20) have been withdrawn. Claims 1-12 have been examined and are currently pending.
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 .
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 10/15/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Response to Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on June 30, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search for the subject matter of any one group would overlap the search for the subject matter of the remaining groups that examining all groups can be performed without a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because inventions I, II, and III are directed to different subject matter and classifications.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Add a colon at the end of the limitation, “at least one processor configured to execute the instructions and cause the system to”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1-12 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.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1 is directed to a system.
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Mental Processes
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations, “receive data from an apheresis machine following completion of an apheresis procedure, the data being in a first format, process the data to transform the data into a second format, the second format being different than the first format, save the data in the second format into a database.” are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. Specifically, the claims are directed to concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, and judgment). In the currently pending claims, a person can evaluate data through observation, evaluation, and judgment and convert data from a first format to a second format using a pen and paper or through the aid of a computer.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The applicant has not shown or demonstrated any of the requirements described above under "integration into a practical application" under step 2A. Specifically, the applicant's limitations are not "integrated into a practical application" because they are adding words "apply it" with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field has not been shown or disclosed (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the applicant’s limitations are not “significantly more” because they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The applicant’s claimed limitations do not demonstrate an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, effecting a transformation or reduction of particular article to a different state or thing, and applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The current application does not amount to 'significantly more' than the abstract idea as described above. The claim does not include additional elements or limitations individually or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the individual elements of at least one memory, at least one processor, apheresis machine, and database to no more than implementing an idea with a computerized system and they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements taken in combination add nothing more than what is present when the elements are considered individually. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the exception (i.e., abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
Dependent claims 2-12 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. The following dependent claims: dependent claim 2 recites an extensible markup language data file, dependent claim 5 recites a comma separated value file, a text file, and an extensible markup language file, and dependent claim 6 recites apheresis data file. Dependent claims 2 and 5-6 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. US Publication 20250349402 A1 in view of White et al. US Publication 20230187031 A1.
Claim 1:
As per claim 1, Tan teaches a system comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (paragraph 0106 “Processor 704 may be programmable and capable of executing software or other instructions stored in memory or on other computer media to perform the various tasks and functions described above, such as one or more of the tasks or methods described above. Processor 704 may be (or may include), for example, hardware, programmable logic, a programmable processor that executes software or firmware, and/or any combination of these.”);
and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions and cause the system to (paragraph 0106 “Processor 704 may be programmable and capable of executing software or other instructions stored in memory or on other computer media to perform the various tasks and functions described above, such as one or more of the tasks or methods described above. Processor 704 may be (or may include), for example, hardware, programmable logic, a programmable processor that executes software or firmware, and/or any combination of these.”)
receive data from an apheresis machine following completion of an apheresis procedure, the data being in a first format (paragraph 0070 “The apheresis device 100 preferably is configured to operate in the connected mode and to automatically connect with the registration server 14. When the apheresis device 100 connects to the Internet (whether through the noted network of FIG. 1 or some other connection), it will automatically register itself with the registration server 14 by sending data about itself, including specific identification data such as serial identifier, location, timestamps, component versions, or any relevant device data such as procedure data, user, or location specific information…”),
process the data to transform the data into a second format, the second format being different than the first format (paragraphs 0076 and 0078-0080 “Data Translation: The middleware translates the data from the BECS 12 into a format that the apheresis device 100 can understand, and vice versa. This involves mapping the data elements, converting data structures, and ensuring compatibility between the systems.” and “Protocol Conversion: If the BECS 12 and the apheresis device 100 use different communication protocols, the middleware converts the data transmission to align with the protocols supported by both systems. This ensures that the data can be successfully transmitted and received by each system.”),
Tan does not teach save the data in the second format into a database. However, White teaches a Virtual Assistant/Chatbot to Improve Clinical Workflows for Home Renal Replacement Therapies and further teaches, “In some instances, the web portal 150 is configured to convert prescribed therapies or programs 202, treatment data 213, and/or patient data 214 from a text-based standard or Health-Level-7 (“HL7”) standard (e.g., a medical standard) to a web-based message (e.g., a HTTP message, an HyperText Markup Language (“HTML”) message, an Extensible Markup Language (“XML”) message, a JavaScript Object Notation (“JSON”) payload, etc.). In other embodiments, the connectivity server 118 is configured to convert HL7 prescribed therapies or programs 202, treatment data 213, and/or patient data 214 from the therapy machine 90 into a text-based or web-based format (e.g., a JSON format) for processing by the clinician server 204 and storage by the clinician database 206.” (paragraph 0100). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Tan to include save the data in the second format into a database as taught by White in order to save space or efficiency.
Claim 2:
As per claim 2, Tan and White teach the system of claim 1 as described above and White further teaches wherein the data is an extensible markup language (XML) data file (paragraph 0100). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Tan to include wherein the data is an extensible markup language (XML) data file as taught by White in order to classify the type of file.
Claim 3:
As per claim 3, Tan and White teach the system of claim 1 as described above and Tan further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to cause the system to:
send the data from the database to a customer specified location (paragraphs 0082-0085).
Claim 4:
As per claim 4, Tan and White the system of claim 3 as described above and Tan further teaches wherein sending the data from the database to the customer specified location comprises:
sending the data in the second format to a second system that is configured to interface with the customer specified location (paragraphs 0082-0085);
formatting the data in the second format to a customer specified format (paragraphs 0082-0085);
and sending the data in the customer specified format to the customer specified location (paragraphs 0082-0085).
Claim 5:
As per claim 5, Tan and White teach the system of claim 4 as described above and White further teaches wherein the customer specified format is at least one of a comma separated value (CSV) file, a text (TXT) file, or an Extensible Markup Language (XML) file (paragraph 0100). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Tan to include wherein the customer specified format is at least one of a comma separated value (CSV) file, a text (TXT) file, or an Extensible Markup Language (XML) file in order to identify a particular file format.
Claim 6:
As per claim 6, Tan and White teach the system of claim 3 as described above and Tan further teaches wherein the data is an apheresis data file for a patient and the customer specified location includes a patient record for the patient (paragraph 0070).
Claim 7:
As per claim 7, Tan and White teach the system of claim 1 as described above and Tan further teaches wherein the data received from the apheresis machine is temporarily stored prior to the data in the second format being saved into the database (paragraph 0070).
Claim 8:
As per claim 8, Tan and White teach the system of claim 7 as described above and Tan further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to cause the system to:
delete the data that is temporarily stored after the data in the second format is saved into the database (paragraph 0067).
Claim 9:
As per claim 9, Tan and White teach the system of claim 1 as described above and Tan further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to cause the system to:
request additional data from a third party (paragraphs 0082-0085);
and receive the additional data from the third party in response to sending a request for the additional data to the third party (paragraphs 0082-0085).
Claim 10:
As per claim 10, Tan and White teach the system of claim 1 as described above and Tan further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to cause the system to:
log activity related to the data to store a record of actions taken with respect to the data (paragraph 0067);
the logged activity for a period of time (paragraph 0067);
and delete the logged activity after the period of time (paragraph 0067).
Claim 11:
As per claim 11, Tan and White teach the system of claim 1 as described above and Tan further teaches wherein processing the data comprises:
verifying a connection to the database (paragraph 0065)
and in response to the connection not being verified, repeating the verification of the connection to the database (paragraph 0065).
Claim 12:
As per claim 12, Tan and White teach the system of claim 1 as described above and Tan further teaches wherein processing the data comprises:
verifying the data (paragraph 0067);
and in response to the data being locked or unable to be read, repeating the verification of the data (paragraph 0067).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tan US Publication 20250345494 A1 Apheresis Registration System
Tan discloses a portable apheresis system for separating blood into blood components includes a cellular modem configured to transmit and receive information to and from the apheresis device via a cellular connection, and a connector operatively coupled with the cellular modem. The connector is configured to control the cellular modem to transmit and receive apheresis device registration information, establish, using the cellular modem, a cellular communication connection between an apheresis device and a cellular network after detecting the cellular network, transmit registration information relating to the apheresis device to a registration and connectivity computer software server via the wireless communication connection, receive an apheresis registration response from the registration and connectivity computer software server, the apheresis registration response including information relating to the apheresis device registration process, the registration process causing direct or indirect apheresis device communication with a blood establishment computer system remotely positioned relative to the apheresis device.
Tan US Publication 20250348795 A1 Plasma Center Queue Management System
Tan discloses a method of managing plasma donation throughput of a plasma donor center includes receiving a request message indicating a request from a donor to donate plasma at the plasma donor center. Plasma donor center data is received from two or more of a plasma donor management system, a plasma center queue management system, or a donor plasma donation mobile application. The wait time is determined within the plasma donor center as a function of plasma center data received from at least two of a plasma donor management system, a plasma center queue management system, or a donor plasma donation mobile application. A reservation message is forwarded to a blood establishment computer system regarding the queue position of the donor, the reservation, or both the donor and the reservation, and a confirmation message is forwarded toward including the determined wait time and preferred arrival time for the donor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30-5:30 pm 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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571)270-5096. 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.
/MATTHEW L HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights