DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has beentimely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/02/2025 has been entered.
Notice of Supervisory Review
This application has been pending five years or more. Consistent with MPEP 707.02, it has been considered “special” by the Examiner, and, in an effort to terminate prosecution, it has been reviewed by the Supervisory Patent Examiner as indicated by signature below.
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Notice to Applicant
This action is in reply to the filed on 10/02/2025.
Claims 1, 24 and 43 have been amended.
Claims 2-8, 22-23, 25-31 and 45-46 have been cancelled.
Claim 1, 9-21, 24 and 32-44 currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The Applicant’s amendments, and cancellation, of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. Said amendments, and cancellation(s), are not sufficient to overcome the rejections previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. §101. As such, said rejections are herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
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.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0002]-[0003]) that individuals, corporate bodies and/or legal entities are confronted with many forms of active and passive risk management to hedge and protect against the risk of certain losses and events. So a need exists to organize these human interactions through patient data-triggered insurance using the steps of “dynamically monitoring patient dataflow pathways, generating multi-dimensional trigger-tables, transmitting patient-measurement parameters, triggering patient-measuring parameters, recording triggered measuring parameters, dynamically adapting illness triggers, processing risk-related data, requesting periodic payments, dynamically adapting operations, changing demographic conditions, changing age distribution, dynamically adapting the number pooled risk exposure components, setting trigger-flags, assigning parametric transfer of payments,” etc. Applicant’s system/method provides patient data-triggered insurance and is therefore a mental process and a certain method of organizing the human activities described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1, 9-21, 24 and 32-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 and 24 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “providing patient data-triggered insurance,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0001]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1, 9-21, 24 and 32-44 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, system/method/computer readable medium/apparatus for performing the steps of “dynamically monitoring patient dataflow pathways, generating multi-dimensional trigger-tables, transmitting patient-measurement parameters, triggering patient-measuring parameters, recording triggered measuring parameters, dynamically adapting illness triggers, processing risk-related data, requesting periodic payments, dynamically adapting operations, changing demographic conditions, changing age distribution, dynamically adapting the number poled risk exposure components, setting trigger-flags, assigning parametric transfer of payments,” etc., that is “providing patient data-triggered insurance,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions)/fundamental economic principles or practices (hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1, 9-21, 24 and 32-44 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. processors, computers, displays, networks (Applicant’s Specification [0029], [0033]), etc.) to perform steps of “dynamically monitoring patient dataflow pathways, generating multi-dimensional trigger-tables, transmitting patient-measurement parameters, triggering patient-measuring parameters, recording triggered measuring parameters, dynamically adapting illness triggers, processing risk-related data, requesting periodic payments, dynamically adapting operations, changing demographic conditions, changing age distribution, dynamically adapting the number poled risk exposure components, setting trigger-flags, assigning parametric transfer of payments,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution activity
Claims 1, 9-21, 24 and 32-44 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations (i.e. processors, computers, displays, networks, etc.) only store and retrieve information and perform repetitive calculations, and these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (Berkheimer- Court Decisions). These court decision indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. processors, computers, displays, networks, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0029], [0033], Applicant’s specification describes conventional computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “processors, computers, displays, networks,” etc. to perform the functions of “dynamically monitoring patient dataflow pathways, generating multi-dimensional trigger-tables, transmitting patient-measurement parameters, triggering patient-measuring parameters, recording triggered measuring parameters, dynamically adapting illness triggers, processing risk-related data, requesting periodic payments, dynamically adapting operations, changing demographic conditions, changing age distribution, dynamically adapting the number poled risk exposure components, setting trigger-flags, assigning parametric transfer of payments,” etc. The recited “processors, computers, displays, networks,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). 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 improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1, 9-21, 24 and 32-44 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 9-21 and 32-44 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 9-21 and 32-44 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. Dependent claims 9-21 and 32-44 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, 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 independent claim(s) 1 and 24.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/02/2025 with respect to claims 1, 9-21, 24 and 32-44 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed 10/02/2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/02/2025 with respect to claims 1, 9-21, 24 and 32-44 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that (A) the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to statutory matter.
101 Responses
As per Applicant’s argument (A), Applicant’s remarks with regard to the statutory nature of Applicant’s claimed invention are addressed above in the Office Action.
Rehash
Applicant's remarks and arguments merely rehash issues addressed in the Office Action mailed 6/2/2025 and incorporated herein.
Applicant’s Amendments
Applicant amended claims recite “by measuring patient-measuring parameters…,” “automated, data-driven system being triggered by the patient-measuring parameters,” “captured by the measuring system of the automated, data-driven system,” “dynamically monitor different stages…” These are information processing steps that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea and do not move Applicant’s invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Data Processing Step
Applicant’s amended steps of “by measuring patient-measuring parameters…,” “automated, data-driven system being triggered by the patient-measuring parameters,” “captured by the measuring system of the automated, data-driven system,” “dynamically monitor different stages…,” are abstract computational steps that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea. In Electric Power Group the collection, manipulation and display of data has been found to be an abstract process. When claims, such as Applicant’s claims, are “directed to an abstract idea” and “merely requir[e] generic computer implementation,” they “do[] not move into [§] 101 eligibility territory.” buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, analysis of information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, is essentially a mental processes within the abstract-idea category (Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354). Further, Applicant appears to be claiming generic computer implementation of a certain method of organsing human interaction. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
August 4, 2025 Memorandum
The Examiner thanks the Applicant remarks regarding the advisory August 4, 2025 Memorandum. The Examiner notes that the August 4, 2025 Memorandum contained advisory remarks but the remarks did not change the nature of examination of Applications under 35 USC 101. The Examiner asserts that the Examiner’s analysis and rejection of the Applicant’s claims under 35 USC 101 is compliant with the Office’s examination procedures under the MPEP. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
2019 PEG Neither Limiting nor Exhaustive
Further, the enumerated examples in the 2019 PEG are neither limiting nor exhaustive. They are exemplary. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Organizing Human Activity
Applicant’s claim(s) recite(s) in part, system/method/computer readable medium/apparatus for performing the steps of “measuring systems dynamically monitoring a patient dataflow pathway by capturing patient-measuring parameters of the patient dataflow pathway within predefined time frames, the resource pooling system triggering the patient-measuring parameters of the patient dataflow pathway transmitted from the measuring systems,” etc., that is “providing patient data-triggered insurance,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions)/fundamental economic principles or practices (hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1, 9-21, 24 and 32-44 recite an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Integration into a Practical Application
Integration into a practical application requires additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (e.g. Enfish, McRO and Vanda) (2019 PEG).
Applicant’s “processors, computers, displays, networks” is/are not an additional element(s) that reflects in the an improvement in the functioning of a computer, is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis, is/are not an additional element(s) that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or things, and is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment for the reasons explained in the 101 rejection above. Applicant’s “processors, computers, displays, networks” is/are merely tools used by Applicant to implement data processing. Data processing is an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Mental Processes
The Examiner is not asserting that Applicant’s claimed invention must practically be performed in the human mind. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Specific Filtering
Applicant states that, “The claimed invention is technically based on a specific filtering by a filter module which allows to split the measuring parameters specifically selected for the technical recognition process.” Specific filtering is an information processing step that is part of Applicant’s abstract idea and does not move Applicant’s invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Technically Not Obvious
It is not clear to the Examiner that “Technically Not Obvious” is a recognized legal principle applicable to consideration under 35 USC 102, 35 USC 103 and/or 35 USC 101. Neither is it clear to the Examiner how Applicant’s claimed invention being not able to automate by conventional systems can be considered for eligibility. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Parameterization of Triggered Measurements
Parameterization of triggered measurement is an information processing step that is part of Applicant’s abstract idea and does not move Applicant’s invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Improvements – Advantageous over previous methods
The test for patent-eligible subject matter is not whether the claims are advantageous over previous methods. Even if Applicant’s claims provide advantages over manual collection of data, Applicant’s claims no technological improvement beyond improvement beyond the use of generic computer components/a generic computer network. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Improvements
Despite recitation of processors, computers, displays, networks, etc. Applicant’s claims are, at bottom, directed to the collection, organization, grouping and storage of data using techniques such as data processing. The processors, computers, displays, networks, etc. recited in Applicant’s claims are merely tools used for organizing human activity, and are not an improvement to computer technology. This, the claims do not present any specific improvement in computer capabilities. Applicant’s arguments are nothing more than conclusory statements unmoored from specific claim language. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant claims the improvement of “providing required accuracy and reliability,” “providing measured data,” etc. It has been held that it is not enough to merely improve a fundamental practices or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool (Affinity Labs. of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation). In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), it was held that “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible. In SAP America, Inc. v InvestPic, LLC it was held that patent directed to “selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying results,” are ineligible, and claims focused on an improvement in wholly abstract ideas are ineligible. Further, invocation of “already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be in advance…amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional” (SAP America, Inc. v InvestPic, LLC). Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Ex Parte Desjardin
The Office has updated MPEP §2100 to incorporate the nonprecedential Desjardins decision and directed patent examiners to consider Enfish when evaluating claims directed to improvements to the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field. The subject matter of the decision itself was directed to an innovation in Artificial Intelligence (AI), which is not the claimed subject matter of Applicant’s claimed invention. The Examiner maintains that the Examiner’s rejection of Applicant’s claims under 35 USC 101 is proper and consistent with Office patent examination procedures. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a-5:00p.
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 W 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 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683