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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed 02/23/2026.
Claims 1-8, 10-18, 20-28 and 30-33 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of the Remarks, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection to claims 8, 18 and 28 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 8, 18 and 28 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8 and 9 of the Remarks, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection to claims 1-30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-30 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-11 of the Remarks, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection to claims 1, 11 and 21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It has been argued on pages 9-11 of the Remarks that the combination of Sundararaman and Calahan do not teach the amended claimed subject matter including “wherein the first data in the first format is from a first source, and wherein the first source includes a monitoring system performing one or more of real-time collection and real-time analysis of patient physiological data”. The Applicant’s interpretation has been noted; however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to the Applicant’s arguments, regarding, “wherein the first data in the first format is from a first source,” Sundararaman, in paragraphs 19 and 27, teaches data being received in a first format (one of many different EDI formats) from a first source (data source). Regarding, “wherein the first source includes a monitoring system performing one or more of real-time collection and real-time analysis of patient physiological data,” this element does not further limit the scope of the claim. Further, the element is not a positively recited step required to be performed by the claim nor does it limit the claim to a particular structure. The scope of the claim is limited to a computer-implemented method executed on a computer device; however, the amended claims are directed to structure and steps of the source which falls outside of the structure and steps performed by the computing device and therefore are not granted patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-6, 10-16, 20-26 and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200050949 A1 to Sundararaman in view of US 20170206362 A1 to Calahan.
As to claims 1, 11 and 21, Sundararaman teaches a computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, comprising: receiving first data in a first format (paragraph 16, receive data by way of the EDI), wherein the first data in the first format is from a first source (paragraphs 19 and 27, teaches data being received in a first format (one of many different EDI formats) from a first source (data source)), and wherein the first source includes a monitoring system performing one or more of real-time collection and real-time analysis of patient physiological data (this element does not further limit the scope of the claim. Further, the element is not a positively recited step required to be performed by the claim nor does it limit the claim to a particular structure. The scope of the claim is limited to a computer-implemented method executed on a computer device, however the amended claims are directed to structure and steps of the source which falls outside of the structure and steps performed by the computing device and therefore are not granted patentable weight); decoding the first data in the first format to generate first decoded data in the first format (paragraph 17, decoding and/or decoupling the data); and converting the first decoded data from the first format to a common format, thus defining common format first data (paragraph 17, converted to a common data format).
Sundararaman does not explicitly teach identifying and using a cipher capable of processing the first data in the first format, thus defining an identified cipher.
However, Calahan teaches identifying and using a cipher capable of processing the first data in the first format, thus defining an identified cipher (paragraphs 41, 71 and 72, identifying the encoding scheme used to encode the data and using the identified encoding scheme to decode the data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Sundararaman to include the method of identifying and using a scheme to decode the encoded data as taught by Calahan in order to optimize the efficiency of decoding the data and reducing or preventing data loss (abstract, paragraphs 40 and 41).
As to claims 2, 12 and 22, Sundararaman teaches wherein the first data in the first format includes one or more of: patient data; treatment data; billing data; physiological alarm data; and technical alarm data (paragraph 28, the data elements contained in the data files may indicate information relating to a patient (e.g., a patient gender, name, member identifier, age, date of birth, and/or the like), information relating to a medical claim (e.g., date(s) of service, a healthcare provider identifier, a billed amount, a paid amount, a denied amount, and/or the like), information relating to a medical condition or treatment (e.g., medical condition(s) identified, medical service(s) performed or received, lab work performed, pharmaceuticals prescribed, and/or the like), information relating to a healthcare provider (e.g., a hospital identifier, a physician or doctor identifier, and/or the like), and/or the like).
As to claims 3, 13 and 23, Sundararaman teaches wherein the first data in the first format includes healthcare data (paragraph 28, information related to a medical condition or treatment).
As to claims 4, 14 and 24, Sundararaman teaches wherein identifying a cipher capable of processing the first data in the first format includes: identifying a mapping cipher capable of mapping the first data from the first format into the common format (paragraph 17, utilize standardized data sets and intelligent mappings to perform more efficient, uniform, consistent, and/or automated data transformations using the data communicated by the healthcare EDI).
As to claims 5, 15 and 25, Sundararaman teaches wherein the first data in the first format includes encoded data (paragraphs 16 and 17, wherein the received data is decoded therefore includes encoded data).
As to claims 6, 16 and 26, Calahan teaches wherein identifying a cipher capable of processing the first data in the first format includes: identifying a decoding cipher capable of decoding the encoded data within the first data in the first format (paragraph 71, identifies the encoding scheme from the encoding flag).
As to claims 10, 20 and 30, Sundararaman teaches wherein 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 middleware system that aggregates data signals; and one or more on-network devices (paragraph 27, data source devices may include computers or servers associated with one or more healthcare entities (e.g., healthcare providers, offices, hospitals, pharmacies, insurance companies, and/or the like)).
As to claims 31, 32 and 33, Sundararaman teaches wherein the monitoring system includes one or more of a bedside device and a wearable sensor (this element does not further limit the scope of the claim. Further, the element is not a positively recited step required to be performed by the claim nor does it limit the claim to a particular structure. The scope of the claim is limited to a computer-implemented method executed on a computer device; however, the amended claims are directed to structure and steps of the source which falls outside of the structure and steps performed by the computing device and therefore are not granted patentable weight).
Claims 7, 8, 17, 18, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundararaman in view of Calahan in further view of US 20190272387 A1 to Gkoulalas-Divanis.
As to claims 7, 17 and 27, Sundararaman and Calahan do not explicitly teach deidentifying the common format first data to generate deidentified common format first data.
However, Gkoulalas-Divanis teaches deidentifying the common format first data to generate deidentified common format first data (paragraphs 27 and 39, data is de-identified).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Sundararaman and Calahan to include the method of de-identifying the data as taught by Gkoulalas-Divanis in order to prevent a person’s real identity from being connected to their personal information, therefore protecting the privacy of the person and their data (paragraphs 2 and 3).
As to claims 8, 18 and 28, Gkoulalas-Divanis teaches storing the deidentified common format first data within a data repository (paragraph 42).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALCOLM CRIBBS whose telephone number is (571)270-1566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 930a-330p; 430p-630p.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached at (571)272-3867. 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.
MALCOLM . CRIBBS
Examiner
Art Unit 2497
/MALCOLM CRIBBS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497