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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/6/2026 has been entered.
2. This action is responsive to the communication filed on 4/6/2026. Claims 1, 8, 11, 18, 21 and 28 have been amended. Claims 1-30 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the guidance set forth in MPEP 2106 which has incorporated the 2019 PEG.
Regarding to claim 1,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 1 recites: A method, comprising:
“receiving first data from a first source having a first format, wherein the first data includes physiological alarm data”. This element reads on a person receives first data from a first source having a first format includes physiological alarm data which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“receiving at least second data from at least a second source having at least a second format, wherein the second data includes, at least in part, treatment data, and receiving at least the second data includes processing the treatment data with natural language processing to parse clinical narratives”. This element reads on a person receives at least second data from at least a second source having at least a second format, wherein the second data includes, at least in part, treatment data, and receiving at least the second data includes processing the treatment data with natural language processing to parse clinical narratives which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“converting the first data from the first format to a common format including parsing real-time alarm messages and translating one or more portions of the first data into a structure format, thus defining common format first data”. This element reads on a person converts the first data from the first format to a common format which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“converting the at least second data from the at least a second format to the common format, thus defining common format at least second data”. This element reads on a person converts the at least second data from the at least a second format to the common format which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
combining the common format first data and the common format at least second data to form a consolidated uniform format data set”. This element reads on a person combines the common format first data and the common format at least second data to form a consolidated uniform format data set which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
Overall, the limitations directed to for a consolidated uniform format and the various mental process limitations in the context of this claim encompasses limitations that are not only considered to be directed to limitations that could be practically performed in the human mind (including observations and preform an evaluation, judgment, and opinion) aided by the use of pen and paper. If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: In Step 2A Prong 2, we are directed to Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of “a computer-implemented, executed on a computing device”
Regarding the a computer-implemented, executed on a computing device,
The processor of a computer system for generating and storing in all steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (generating and storing). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(ts). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element “a computer-implemented, executed on a computing device” is simply applying the abstract idea, and there is nothing done with results. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and does not provide any improvement in computer technology (see MPEP2106.05(a)).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: In Step 2B, we are directed to Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting 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 “a computer-implemented, executed on a computing device” is simply applying the abstract idea, and there is nothing done with results.
Accordingly, this additional element(s), taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites “the first source includes one or more of:
a database system;
an asset management system;
a records system;
a human resources system;
an insurance system;
a monitoring system;
a middleware system that aggregates data signals; and
one or more on-network devices" That is, the claim recites
the first source includes one or more of:
a database system;
an asset management system;
a records system;
a human resources system;
an insurance system;
a monitoring system;
a middleware system that aggregates data signals; and
one or more on-network devices. The above-noted limitation of claim 2, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 3 recites “the at least a second source includes one or more of:
a database system;
an asset management system;
a records system;
a human resources system;
an insurance system;
a monitoring system;
a middleware system that aggregates data signals; and
one or more on-network devices" That is, the claim recites
the at least a second source includes one or more of:
a database system;
an asset management system;
a records system;
a human resources system;
an insurance system;
a monitoring system;
a middleware system that aggregates data signals; and
one or more on-network devices. The above-noted limitation of claim 3, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 4 recites “the first data from the first source having the first format includes healthcare data." That is, the claim recites the first data from the first source having the first format includes healthcare data.. The above-noted limitation of claim 4, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 5 recites “the at least second data from the at least a second source having the at least a second format includes healthcare data " That is, the claim recites the at least second data from the at least a second source having the at least a second format includes healthcare data. The above-noted limitation of claim 5, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 6 recites “converting the first data from the first format to a common format includes: deidentifying the first data to remove personally identifiable information and/or personal health information when defining the common format first data" That is, the claim recites converting the first data from the first format to a common format includes: deidentifying the first data to remove personally identifiable information and/or personal health information when defining the common format first data. The above-noted limitation of claim 6, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 7 recites “converting the at least second data from the at least a second format to the common format includes: deidentifying the at least second data to remove personally identifiable information and/or personal health information when defining common format at least second data" That is, the claim recites converting the at least second data from the at least a second format to the common format includes: deidentifying the at least second data to remove personally identifiable information and/or personal health information when defining common format at least second data. The above-noted limitation of claim 7, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 8 recites “the first data from the first source having the first format includes one or more of:
patient data;
billing data; and
technical alarm data." That is, the claim recites
the first data from the first source having the first format includes one or more of:
patient data;
billing data; and
technical alarm data.
The above-noted limitation of claim 8, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 9,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 9 recites “the at least second data from the at least a second source having the at least a second format includes one or more of:
patient data;
treatment data;
billing data;
physiological alarm data; and
technical alarm data." That is, the claim recites
the at least second data from the at least a second source having the at least a second format includes one or more of:
patient data;
treatment data;
billing data;
physiological alarm data; and
technical alarm data.
The above-noted limitation of claim 9, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 10 recites “deidentifying the consolidated uniform format data set to generate a deidentified uniform format data set." That is, the claim recites deidentifying the consolidated uniform format data set to generate a deidentified uniform format data set. The above-noted limitation of claim 10, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the same rational of claims 1-10.
Claims 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the same rational of claims 1-0.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
9. Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHENG in view of Rusin, and further in view of Marcjan..
10. With respect to claim 1,
ZHENG discloses a computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, comprising:
receiving first data from a first source having a first format;
receiving at least second data from at least a second source having at least a second format;
converting the first data from the first format to a common format (ZHENG [0123] e.g. [0123] FIG. 8 shows an example data agnostic data set 800 according to some implementations. The data agnostic data set 800 may be generated by the data format layer 212 (FIG. 2) of the runtime environment 210 (FIG. 2) in response to the runtime environment 210 receiving data from data sets stored on the data storage 208 (FIG. 2) of the database system 202 (FIG. 2). In the illustrated example, the runtime environment 210 may have received data included in the first data set 302 (FIG.3), the second data set 304 (FIG. 3), and the third data set 306 and generated the data agnostic dataset 800 based on the received data. The data received may have been converted into a common format by the database system 202 prior to transmission. In some examples, the data may be received by the runtime environment 210 in multiple different formats and be converted into a common format by the data format layer 212.), thus defining common format first data;
converting the at least second data from the at least a second format to the common format, thus defining common format at least second data; and
combining the common format first data and the common format at least second data to form a consolidated uniform format data set (ZHENG [0115] e.g. [0115] When the database system 202 transmits the first linked data and/or the second linked data to the user system 204 (as described throughout this disclosure), the database system 202 may replace the entries in the field associated with the first linked data and/or the second linked data with the uniform entry of the label 708. In the illustrated example, the uniform entry within the label 708 is ‘Name’. Accordingly, the database system 202 may indicate that the first linked data and the second linked data are associated with a field labeled ‘Name’ when transmitting the first linked data and/or the second linked data in the illustrated example. Further, the database system 202 may format the data entries of the first linked data and the second linked data in accordance with the uniform format. In the illustrated example, the uniform format may be ‘$X,XXX’. Accordingly, the database system 202 may format the first linked data and the second linked data to be in the ‘$X,XXX’ format. It should be noted that although the second linked data is stored in ‘X.XXX’ format in the second data set 304, the database system 202 may convert the second linked data to ‘$X,XXX’ format when transmitting the second linked data in the illustrated example based on the first link 504.).
Although ZHENG substantially teaches the claimed invention, ZHENG does not explicitly indicate
wherein the first data includes physiological alarm data; or
including parsing real-time alarm messages and translating one or more portions of the first data into a structure format.
Rusin teaches the limitations by stating
receiving first data from a first source having a first format, wherein the first data includes physiological alarm data (Rusin [0034] and claim 15 e.g. [0034] Data is obtained from various sources, converted to CRF format, and collected in real-time and stored on data servers, allowing data transformation to occur in real-time or on historical data sets. [claim 15] A method of managing physiological alarms [as physiological alarm data], comprising: receiving an alarm from a bedside physiological monitoring device; evaluating an alarm routing rule corresponding to the alarm, the rule associated with an alarm context; and routing the alarm to a recipient designated by the alarm routing rule, wherein the alarm routing rule comprises a computational algorithm);
converting the first data from the first format to a common format including parsing real-time alarm messages and translating one or more portions of the first data into a structure format (Rusin [0034] and claim 15 e.g. [0034] Data is obtained from various sources, converted to CRF format, and collected in real-time and stored on data servers, allowing data transformation to occur in real-time or on historical data sets. [claim 15] A method of managing physiological alarms, comprising: receiving an alarm from a bedside physiological monitoring device; evaluating an alarm routing rule corresponding to the alarm, the rule associated with an alarm context; and routing the alarm to a recipient designated by the alarm routing rule, wherein the alarm routing rule comprises a computational algorithm [as
converting the first data from the first format to a common format (e.g. CRF format) including parsing real-time (e.g. real-time) alarm (e.g. alarm) messages and translating (e.g. convert) one or more portions of the first data into a structure format (e.g. CRF format)]), thus defining common format first data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, in view of the teachings of ZHENG and Rusin, to provide improved systems and methods for both continuously monitor the alarm environment, apply layers of intelligence to an alarm management solution, and compare the alarms to what is actually happening with the patient (Rusin [0003]).
Although ZHENG and Rusin combination substantially teaches the claimed invention, they do not explicitly indicate
wherein the second data includes, at least in part, treatment data, and receiving at least the second data includes processing the treatment data with natural language processing to parse clinical narratives.
Marcjan teaches the limitations by stating wherein the second data includes, at least in part, treatment data (Marcjan [0030], [0046] e.g. treatment; [0030] The health data platform 102 can be configured to receive and process many different types of health data, such as patient data. Examples of patient data include, but are not limited to, the following: age, gender, height, weight, demographics, symptoms (e.g., types and dates of symptoms), diagnoses (e.g., types of diseases or conditions, date of diagnosis), medications (e.g., type, formulation, prescribed dose, actual dose taken, timing, dispensation records), treatment history (e.g., types and dates of treatment procedures, the healthcare facility or provider that administered the treatment),…, clinical notes and/or observations, other medical history (e.g., immunization records, death records), … A set of patient data relating to the health of an individual patient may be referred to herein as a “patient record.”), and receiving at least the second data includes processing the treatment data with natural language processing (Marcjan [0048], [0054] e.g. natural language processing; [0048] Document-level information extraction is an important task in natural language processing, particularly in domains such as healthcare … [0054] The routine 200 continues in block 204 with tokenizing the document to generate a sequence of tokens. Tokenization in the context of machine learning and natural language processing refers to the process of breaking down a text document into smaller units, commonly referred to as “tokens.” These tokens can be as small as individual words, or even smaller components, such as sub-words, syllables, or characters.) to parse clinical narratives (Marcjan abstract, [0019], [0030], [0053], [0081] – [0082] e.g. analyzed; clinical; [abstract] Systems and methods for efficient information retrieval for clinical data are provided. A document including one or more patient health records can be obtained and tokenized to generate a sequence of tokens, each corresponding to a word or sub-word within the document. A plurality of segments each containing a token sequence comprising a sub-set of the tokens are then generated. Next, a transformer model is used to process each of the plurality of segments to generate a corresponding word-level encoding for each segment. The word-level encodings for each of the segments are combined and fused to obtain document-level contextual data. The combined and fused word-level encodings can then be analyzed, such as to identify named entities and relationships between them. [0019] To evaluate these aspects, a given document corpus (e.g., a patient's medical records) must be analyzed to identify certain entities (e.g., instances of medication M, lab measurement of type L, etc.) and/or relationships between entities (e.g., a dosage D of medication M). Machine learning techniques involving language models have shown promise in named … In particular, the maximum input window for a given language model is often insufficient for an entire document (e.g., a single clinical note in a patient's medical history). ….).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, in view of the teachings of ZHENG, Rusin and Marcjan, to provide improved systems and methods for analyzing health data (Marcjan [0004]).
11. With respect to claim 2,
ZHENG discloses wherein the first source includes one or more of:
a database system (ZHENG [0054] – [0056] e.g. database system);
an asset management system;
a records system;
a human resources system;
an insurance system;
a monitoring system;
a middleware system that aggregates data signals; and
one or more on-network devices.
12. With respect to claim 3,
ZHENG discloses wherein the at least a second source includes one or more of:
a database system (ZHENG [0054] – [0056] e.g. database system);
an asset management system;
a records system;
a human resources system;
an insurance system;
a monitoring system;
a middleware system that aggregates data signals; and
one or more on-network devices.
13. With respect to claim 4,
Rusin discloses wherein the first data from the first source having the first format includes healthcare data (Rusin [0046], [0082] e.g. health care)..
14. With respect to claim 5,
Rusin further discloses wherein the at least second data from the at least a second source having the at least a second format includes healthcare data (Rusin [0046], [0082] e.g. health care).
15. With respect to claim 6,
Marcjan further discloses deidentifying the first data to remove personally identifiable information and/or personal health information when defining the common format first data (Marcjan [0016] e.g. de-identified).
16. With respect to claim 7,
Marcjan further discloses deidentifying the at least second data to remove personally identifiable information and/or personal health information when defining common format at least second data (Marcjan [0016] e.g. de-identified).
17. With respect to claim 8,
Rusin further discloses wherein the first data from the first source having the first format includes one or more of:
patient data (Rusin [0016] – [0017] e.g. patient bedside monitoring data);
billing data; and
technical alarm data.
18. With respect to claim 9,
Rusin further discloses wherein the at least second data from the at least a second source having the at least a second format includes one or more of:
patient data (Rusin [0016] – [0017] e.g. patient bedside monitoring data);
treatment data;
billing data;
physiological alarm data; and
technical alarm data.
19. With respect to claim 10,
Marcjan further discloses deidentifying the consolidated uniform format data set to generate a deidentified uniform format data set (Marcjan [0036] e.g. [0036] The health data platform 102 can allow one or more users 108 (e.g., researchers, healthcare professionals, health system administrators) to access the aggregated health data stored in the common data repository 106. Each user 108 can communicate with the health data platform 102 via a computing device (e.g., personal computer, laptop, mobile device, tablet computer) and the network110. For example, a user 108 can send a request to the health data platform 102 to retrieve a desired data set, such as data for a population of patients meeting one or more conditions (e.g., diagnosed with a particular disease, receiving particular medication, belonging to a particular demographic group). The health data platform 102 can search the common data repository 106 to identify a subset of the stored health data that fulfills the requested conditions, and can provide the identified subset to the user 108. Optionally, the health data platform 102 can perform additional operations on the identified subset of health data before providing the data to the user, such as de-identification and/or other processes to ensure data security and patient privacy protection.).
20. Claims 11-20 are same as claims 1-10 and are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
21. Claims 21-30 are same as claims 1-10 and are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Response to Argument
22. On page 10, Applicant alleges the amended independent claims are not believed to be directed toward an abstract idea.
Examiner disagrees because:
Claim 1 recites: A method, comprising:
“receiving first data from a first source having a first format, wherein the first data includes physiological alarm data”. This element reads on a person receives first data from a first source having a first format includes physiological alarm data which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“receiving at least second data from at least a second source having at least a second format, wherein the second data includes, at least in part, treatment data, and receiving at least the second data includes processing the treatment data with natural language processing to parse clinical narratives”. This element reads on a person receives at least second data from at least a second source having at least a second format, wherein the second data includes, at least in part, treatment data, and receiving at least the second data includes processing the treatment data with natural language processing to parse clinical narratives which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“converting the first data from the first format to a common format including parsing real-time alarm messages and translating one or more portions of the first data into a structure format, thus defining common format first data”. This element reads on a person converts the first data from the first format to a common format which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“converting the at least second data from the at least a second format to the common format, thus defining common format at least second data”. This element reads on a person converts the at least second data from the at least a second format to the common format which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
combining the common format first data and the common format at least second data to form a consolidated uniform format data set”. This element reads on a person combines the common format first data and the common format at least second data to form a consolidated uniform format data set which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
Overall, the limitations directed to for a consolidated uniform format and the various mental process limitations in the context of this claim encompasses limitations that are not only considered to be directed to limitations that could be practically performed in the human mind (including observations and preform an evaluation, judgment, and opinion) aided by the use of pen and paper. If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
23. Applicant’s remarks and arguments presented on pages 10-12 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
24. The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
25. When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SyLing Yen whose telephone number is 571-270-1306. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30am - 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at 571-272-4098. 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.
/SYLING YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
May 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights