DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea
without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-17 are within the four statutory categories. However, as will be shown below, claims 1-17 are
nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are representative of the inventive concept and recite:
Claim 1
A method for processing secure clinical data, the method comprising:
distributing a plurality of clinical data segments to a plurality of distributed processors, wherein the clinical data segments are segmented based on a segmentation protocol;
processing the distributed plurality of clinical data segments by the plurality of distributed processors to generate a plurality of processed clinical data segments;
and combining the plurality of the processed clinical data segments to generate a single combined processed clinical data result.
*Claims 7 and 13 recites similar limitations as claim 1, but for a non-transitory machine readable medium and system, respectively.
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because the
highlighted components can practically be performed by the human mind (in this case, the process of
processing, distributing, and combining) or using pen and paper. Other than reciting generic computer components/functions such as “processor”, “non transitory computer readable medium”, and “data processing system”, nothing in the claims precludes the highlighted portions from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components/functions, then it falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. The recitation of generic computer components/functions of distributing and combining also covers behavioral or interactions between people (i.e. a computer and user interface), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case a person is able to physically follow the steps to collect and analyze data), hence the claim falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-17 recite additional subject matter which further narrows or
defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim 2, reciting what types of data that clinical data entails, but for recitation of generic computer components/functions).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the
following additional limitations:
Claim 1 recites: “processors”
Claim 7 recites: “non transitory computer readable medium”
Claim 13 recites: “data processing system”
In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations of
are recited as being performed by a “processor”, “non transitory computer readable medium”, and “data processing system”. A computer is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Dependent claims 5, 12, and 15 recite “user interface”
Dependent claims 8, 9, 14, 16, and 17 recites “encryption”
Dependent claims 9 and 17 recite “decryption”
In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations of
are recited as being performed by a “user interface”. A computer is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the
recitation of “encryption” and “decryption”.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6, and 10-12, do not include any additional elements beyond those
already recited in independent claims 1, 7, and 13 and dependent claims 5, 8-9, 12, and 14-17, and hence do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Their collective function merely provides conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 7, and 13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements: A method in claim 1; amount to no
more than mere instructions to apply an exception to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional
limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which amount to
elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular
fields as demonstrated by the recitation of:
Encryption, which refers to the process of converting readable data in a secret code to protect sensitive information (Para 87, Ahrens(US 11564038 B1) discloses: “In addition, all or some of links can be encrypted using conventional encryption technologies such as secure sockets layer (SSL), transport layer security (TLS), virtual private networks (VPNs), Internet Protocol security (IPsec), etc.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Decryption, which refers to the process of converting scrambled, unreadable data back into its original readable format (Para 0024, Hoogerbrugge(US 20220114002 A1) discloses: “For example, program code 26 and data 28 may be encrypted/decrypted according to conventional encryption/decryption software such as Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), Data Encryption Standard (DES), or other type of suitable encryption algorithm.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6, and 10-12 do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1, 7, and 13. Therefore, they are not deemed to be significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the limitations of the aforementioned dependent claims amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or do not recite and additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1, 7, and 13, hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 is being unpatentable over Yoo(US20230102732A1)
In view of Parimal(US20190334705A1).
Claim 1
Yoo discloses:
A method for processing secure clinical data, the method comprising: distributing a plurality of clinical data segments(Figure 3, #131, Yoo discloses clinical data segments) to (Para 0024, 0025, Yoo discloses parameters by which data is segmented); processing the distributed plurality of clinical data segments by the plurality of distributed processors to generate a plurality of processed clinical data segments(Figure 1, Yoo discloses the separated collaborators represent separate clinical data segments); and (Para 0027, Yoo discloses a diagnosis as an output).
Yoo does not explicitly disclose:
a plurality of distributed processors
combining the plurality of the processed clinical data segments
Parimal discloses:
a plurality of distributed processors(Figure 1A, Parimal discloses various database nodes, which can be considered processors)
combining the plurality of the processed clinical data segments(Para 0013, Parimal discloses the information from the database nodes can be combined to generate a final query output)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the privacy preserving data curation for federated learning of Yoo to add a plurality of distributed processors and combining the plurality of the processed clinical data segments, as taught by Parimal. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide identity protection for persona medical data, but in this case for an encrypted communication channels for distributed database systems(Para 0010, Parimal discloses: “In some examples, it may be necessary or desirable to protect the data of the database system from being accessed by unauthorized parties. For example, a database that stores sensitive financial or medical information may require a relatively high of data protection.”).
Claim 2
Yoo discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the clinical data is imaging data obtained by an imaging modality(Para 0028, Yoo discloses imaging data), and wherein the imaging modality is a local data center or is in communication with the local data center(Para 0016, Yoo discloses the collaborators can be medical centers).
Claim 3
Yoo does not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 1, further comprising encrypting at least a portion of the plurality of clinical data segments.
Parimal discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising encrypting at least a portion of the plurality of clinical data segments(Para 0027, Parimal discloses the encryption of query metadata).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the privacy preserving data curation for federated learning of Yoo to add encrypting at least a portion of the plurality of clinical data segments, as taught by Parimal. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide identity protection for persona medical data, but in this case for an encrypted communication channels for distributed database systems(Para 0010, Parimal discloses: “In some examples, it may be necessary or desirable to protect the data of the database system from being accessed by unauthorized parties. For example, a database that stores sensitive financial or medical information may require a relatively high of data protection.”).
Claim 4
Yoo discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of clinical data segments are segmented such that a clinical data segment sent to a distributed processor cannot identify the patient(Figure 3, Yoo discloses data anonymization).
Claim 5
Yoo discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising providing, via a user interface(Figure 4, #129, Yoo discloses an interface), the single combined processed secure(Figure 3, Yoo discloses data anonymization) clinical data result(Para 0027, Yoo discloses a diagnosis as an output).
Claim 6
Yoo discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising diagnosing(Para 0027, Yoo discloses a diagnosis as an output) the patient based on the single combined processed secure clinical data result(Figure 3, Yoo discloses data anonymization); and administering a treatment based on the diagnosis(Para 0027, Yoo discloses a diagnosis as an output).
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites similar limitations as claim 1. See claim 1 analysis.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites similar limitations as claim 3. See claim 3 analysis.
Claim 9
Yoo does not explicitly disclose:
The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 8, the instructions, when executed the processor, further cause the processor to: receive a plurality of encrypted processed clinical data segments from the plurality of distributed databases; decrypt the received plurality of encrypted processed clinical data segments to generate a plurality of decrypted processed clinical data segments; and combine the plurality of decrypted processed clinical data segments to generate a single combined secure clinical data result.
Parimal discloses:
The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 8, the instructions, when executed the processor, further cause the processor to: receive a plurality of encrypted processed clinical data segments from the plurality of distributed databases(Para 0028, Parimal discloses the receipt of encrypted data from a database node); decrypt the received plurality of encrypted processed clinical data segments to generate a plurality of decrypted processed clinical data segments(Para 0028, Parimal discloses decrypting encrypted data); and combine the plurality of decrypted processed clinical data segments to generate a single combined secure clinical data result(Para 0013, Parimal discloses combining data segments to generate a final query output).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the privacy preserving data curation for federated learning of Yoo to add encrypting/decrypting of data of clinical data segments, as taught by Parimal. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide identity protection for persona medical data, but in this case for an encrypted communication channels for distributed database systems(Para 0010, Parimal discloses: “In some examples, it may be necessary or desirable to protect the data of the database system from being accessed by unauthorized parties. For example, a database that stores sensitive financial or medical information may require a relatively high of data protection.”).
Claim 10
Yoo does not explicitly disclose:
The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 9, wherein a local data center maintains a record of which distributed databases store which clinical data segments.
Parimal discloses:
The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 9, wherein a local data center maintains a record of which distributed databases store which clinical data segments.(Para 0019, Parimal discloses database management module manages updates and administration of the databases)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the privacy preserving data curation for federated learning of Yoo to add local data center maintains a record of which distributed databases store which clinical data segments, as taught by Parimal. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide identity protection for persona medical data, but in this case for an encrypted communication channels for distributed database systems(Para 0010, Parimal discloses: “In some examples, it may be necessary or desirable to protect the data of the database system from being accessed by unauthorized parties. For example, a database that stores sensitive financial or medical information may require a relatively high of data protection.”).
Claim 11
Yoo discloses:
The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 7, wherein the instructions, when executed the processor, further cause the processor to replicate at least a portion of the plurality of clinical data segments(Para 0021, Yoo discloses the repeating of data curation).
Claim 12
Claim 7 recites similar limitations as claim 5. See claim 5 analysis.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites similar limitations as claim 1. See claim 1 analysis.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites similar limitations as claim 3. See claim 3 analysis.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites similar limitations as claim 5. See claim 5 analysis.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites similar limitations as claim 11. See claim 11 analysis.
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites similar limitations as claim 9. See claim 9 analysis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bronkalla(US20180068436A1) discloses a multiple algorithm lesion segmentation system
Burceanu(US11599669B2) discloses image distribution using composite re-encrypted images
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERYL GOPAL PATEL whose telephone number is (703)756-1990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30am to 2:30pm PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.G.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights