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 Objections
Claim(s) 1, 5 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line(s) 22, “the keyword” seems to be a grammatical error. Examiner recommends amending it to read -- the keywords --.
In claim 5, line(s) 1-2, “wherein the keywords are associated with the annotated PL data reflect” seems to be a grammatical error. Examiner recommends amending it to read -- wherein the keywords [[are]] associated with the annotated PL data reflect --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claim(s) 1-20 are allowable over prior art because the prior art of record fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims, in particular: “implement a temporal-based data transmission and storage policy comprising transforming annotated problem list (PL) data into keywords and sending only the keywords from one or more user devices to the server to minimize an amount of data transmitted over the network during peak usage times, increase transmission speed over the network, and improve real-time network capability,” “remove duplicate entries from the MPL and selectively store non-duplicate entries in appropriate authorized DPLs based on hierarchical list update permissions and results of the NLP to minimize data redundancy for optimal storage and processing efficiency at the server; and disable update buttons for a PL with which the keyword are associated on a device screen of a user who entered annotations associated with the annotated PL data until any previously sent edit/annotation updates have been approved or denied by a user or one or more user devices with approval authority for storage at the server.” Because the prior art does not teach or disclose the above features in the specific manner and combinations recited in claims 1, 9, 17, claims 1, 9, 17are hereby deemed to be allowable over prior art. Originally numbered dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20 incorporate the allowable features of originally numbered independent claims 1, 9, 17 through dependency, respectively.
However, the claims are still rejected under 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9 recites the limitation "the NLP" in line 20 (claim 1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate clarification is requested for the proper interpretation of the claim limitations, as the ambiguity renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Claim(s) 2-8 is/are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected as being dependent on claim 9.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, 13-14, 17-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,380,974. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
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 1 is drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine). Claim 9 is drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., method). Claim 17 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a computer readable program which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., manufacture).
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 9, 17) recites… implement a temporal-based data transmission and storage policy comprising transforming annotated problem list (PL) data into keywords and [providing] only the keywords…; actively manage incoming requests for medical data for the patient by determining and dynamically granting access to the MPL and DPLs for the one or more user devices based on at least the data transmission and storage policy; receive…the keywords associated with the annotated PL data reflecting clinical observations; remove duplicate entries from the MPL and selectively store non-duplicate entries in appropriate authorized DPLs based on hierarchical list update permissions and results of the NLP to minimize data redundancy for optimal storage and processing efficiency at the server; and disable [updates] for a PL with which the keyword are associated…of a user who entered annotations associated with the annotated PL data until any previously sent edit/annotation updates have been approved or denied by a user or one or more user devices with approval authority for storage at the server.
Independent claim 17 further recites… iteratively compare at least the keywords with existing entries in the MPL to identify duplicate entries in the MPL.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations noted above, as drafted, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people…following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to update, organize, and access a patient’s medical records (i.e., ¶ 0045-0047 of the specification describes “identification and documentation of pertinent health issues” as human activity performed by “physicians and nurses”) in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps, as indicated supra. That is, other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), the claim amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people following rules or instructions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites additional elements (i.e., A system comprising a server accessed via a network, including a processor and a memory storing instructions; store a master problem list (MPL) and a plurality of hierarchical derivative problem lists (DPLs) associated with a patient in a medical records database on the server; sending only the keywords from one or more user devices to the server to minimize an amount of data transmitted over the network during peak usage times, increase transmission speed over the network, and improve real-time network capability; buttons…on a device screen). Claim 9 recites additional elements (i.e., storing a master problem list (MPL) and a plurality of hierarchical derivative problem lists (DPLs) associated with a patient in a medical records database on a server accessed over a network; sending only the keywords from one or more user devices to the server to minimize an amount of data transmitted over the network during peak usage times, increase transmission speed over the network, and improve real-time network capability; buttons…on a device screen). Claim 17 recites additional elements (i.e., A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a computer readable program operatively coupled to a processor; a computer; store a master problem list (MPL) and a plurality of hierarchical derivative problem lists (DPLs) associated with a patient in a medical records database on the server; sending only the keywords from one or more user devices to the server to minimize an amount of data transmitted over the network during peak usage times, increase transmission speed over the network, and improve real-time network capability; natural language processing (NLP); buttons…on a device screen). Looking to the specifications, a server having a database on a network, computer having a processor, memory, non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a computer readable program is described at a high level of generality (¶ 0055-0056), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, “store a master problem list (MPL) and a plurality of hierarchical derivative problem lists (DPLs) associated with a patient in a medical records database on the server” only invokes the database merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing, providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only provides the input data for the performance of the abstract idea, and as such, amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e., mere data gathering), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. See: MPEP § 2106.05(g). Also, “sending only the keywords from one or more user devices to the server to minimize an amount of data transmitted over the network during peak usage times, increase transmission speed over the network, and improve real-time network capability” only invokes the user devices merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., providing, receiving data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only provides the input data for the performance of the abstract idea, and as such, amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e., mere data gathering), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. See: MPEP § 2106.05(g). Also, “natural language processing (NLP)” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Furthermore, “buttons…on a device screen” amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. 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.
Reevaluated under step 2B, the additional elements noted above do not provide “significantly more” when taken either individually or as an ordered combination. The use of a general purpose computer or computers (i.e., a server having a database on a network, computer having a processor, memory, non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a computer readable program) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and does not impose any meaningful limitation on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, so it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Also, “store a master problem list (MPL) and a plurality of hierarchical derivative problem lists (DPLs) associated with a patient in a medical records database on the server” only invokes the database merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing, providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. See: MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Also, “sending only the keywords from one or more user devices to the server to minimize an amount of data transmitted over the network during peak usage times, increase transmission speed over the network, and improve real-time network capability” only invokes the user devices merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., providing, receiving data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. See: MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Also, “natural language processing (NLP)” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Furthermore, “buttons…on a device screen” amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as the courts have found in Parker v. Flook; similarly, the current invention merely limits the claimed calculations to the healthcare industry which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Therefore, there are no limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20 include all the limitations of the parent claims and further elaborate on the abstract idea discussed above and incorporated herein.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20 further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claims 8, 16 further recites the additional elements of “natural language processing (NLP),” which was previously analyzed as only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Although the dependent claims add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0147949 A1 teaches detecting and merging duplicates from a master patient index database.
WO 2014/134382 A1 teaches generating and updating a problem list based on user input.
“The Science and Practice of SNOMED CT Implementation” teaches populating multiple problem lists with a master problem list in the EMR.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-8317. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-5 PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571) 272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights