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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 ("RCE"), 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 24, 2025, has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a Final Office Action having a notification date of April 24, 2025 (“Final Office Action”), with claims 1-7 and 16-20 being withdrawn. Following the Final Office Action, Applicant filed an amendment on October 24, 2025 (“Amendment”), amending claim 8. The Amendment resulted in an Advisory Action dated October 29, 2025, indicating non-entry of the Amendment. A Notice of Abandonment was mailed on December 31, 2025. Applicant then filed a Petition for Revival ("Petition for Revival") and the RCE on March 31, 2026, requesting revival of the application and entry of the Amendment. Petition Decision granting the Petition for Revival was mailed on May 11, 2026.
The present non-final Office Action addresses pending claims 1-20 in the Amendment, with claims 1-7 and 16-20 being withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §101
Starting on page 9 of the Amendment, Applicant asserts that the Examiner is maintaining the argument that the present claims do not recite that the information in the EHR database is in a standardized format. This is not true. While the Examiner made this argument in the non-final Office Action dated October 11, 2024 at pages 4-5, the Examiner did not maintain this position in the Final Office Action. See bottom of page 2 of Final Office Action where the Examiner referred to the standardized data being stored in the EHR database as a "prior difference."
On page 10 of the Amendment, Applicant argues that the Examiner has required "remote access" and the claims do not require such "remote access." The Examiner disagrees and asserts that the Examiner has not "required" any particular claim language as asserted by Applicant. Rather, the Examiner has asserted how the present claims do not provide remote access to users via a GUI over a network allowing any of the users to provide updated patient condition information in a non-standardized format dependent on the hardware and software platform used by the one of the users as does the claim in Example 42. Instead, they recite a patient apparatus having an interface to receive patient data and an EHR database coupled to and remote from the patient apparatus and including medical history information retrievable from the patient apparatus. More specifically, the present claims never recite that a plurality of users have access to the EHR or provide information in a non-standardized format dependent on the hardware and software platform used by the one of the users.
Applicant then asserts how the Examiner further argues that the difference between automatically transmitting versus notifying somehow does not meet the additional "significantly more" than a judicial exception. To be clear, the Examiner's position is that generating and transmitting a request to a patient for additional patient input (per the present claims) is distinct from and has nothing to do with generating and transmitting a message with updated information to all users of the network whenever updated information has been stored (per the Example 42 claim). The former is a request for additional information not yet received (where generation of the request is mentally performable and transmission of the request is extra-solution activity that does not provide a practical application of or significantly more than the abstract idea) while the latter is generation and transmission of a notification that updated information has been stored and is accessible which provides a practical application of an improvement that allows remote users to share information in real-time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user.
Regarding Applicant's position that "the following limitations that are in the current claims drastically narrow...," Applicant did not indicate such following limitations.
The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-In line 5, “an” should be changed to --a--.
-In the fifth to last line, the first or second occurrence of “at least some of the” should be removed.
-In the second to last line, “HER” should be changed to --EHR--.
-In the last line, the period should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
As claims 8-15 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), the claims are all within at least one of the four statutory categories. 35 USC 101.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Independent claim 8 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 8 recites:
A system for automated healthcare service, the system comprising:
a patient apparatus comprising a patient interface to receive patient input comprising patient identification data and symptom data;
an network-based electronic health record (EHR) database coupled to the patient apparatus and being remote to the patient apparatus, the EHR database comprises medical history information related to the patient retrievable from the patient apparatus based on the patient input, the network-based EHR database being remote from the patient apparatus;
a medical information communication application (MICA) module coupled to the patient apparatus and the EHR database to receive the patient input and to retrieve the medical history information related to the patient, the MICA module retrieves reference information external from the EHR database based on the patient input and retrieved medical history information, and implements a trustability analysis for the retrieved reference information to select reference information from the retrieved reference information, the selection of the reference information is based on ranking of trustability factors assigned to each retrieved reference information during the trustability analysis; and
a computing apparatus coupled to receive the patient input, the retrieved medical history information, and the selected reference information, the computing apparatus comprising a diagnostic module comprising a recurrent neural network (RNN) or deep neural network (DNN) pre-trained using one or more medical databases to perform an analysis for the patient input, the retrieved medical history information, and the selected reference information using procedures comprising preprocessing, segmentation, region of interest analysis, evaluation, and classification;
wherein in response to the analysis indicating a need for additional patient input, the computing apparatus generates a request for additional patient input, the request is transmitted to the patient apparatus for the patient to respond;
wherein in response to the analysis indicating no additional patient input needed, the computing apparatus generates one or more diagnostic results;
wherein at least some of the at least some of the patient input is automatically converted to a standardized format that is compatible with that of patient health care data in the EHR database; and
using the standardized data to update the EHR database, the standardized data being stored in the HER database.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: (a) “certain
methods of organizing human activity” because implementing a trustability analysis on reference information using trustability factors assigned to the reference information, analyzing the reference information as well as patient symptoms and medical history, requesting additional patient input, and then generating a diagnosis relates to managing human behavior/interactions between people. Furthermore, the foregoing underlined limitations constitute (b) “a mental process” because implementing a trustability analysis on reference information using trustability factors assigned to the reference information, analyzing the reference information as well as patient symptoms and medical history, generating a diagnosis, and converting some of the patient input to a standardized format compatible with patient health care data in the database are observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can be performed in the human mind.
As an example, as part of diagnosing a patient, a medical professional or other user could practically in their mind or with pen and paper select “reference information” (e.g., guidelines, journals, etc.) based on some sort of “trustability analysis” indicative of the level of reliability of the reference information. For instance, the medical professional could review a number of guidelines, journals, or other sources of information related to the patient’s symptoms, etc. and utilize those sources that the professional believes to be more reliable than others (e.g., such as based on personal knowledge of the sources, authors of the sources, peer reviews of the sources, etc.) along with patient symptoms and patient medical history information as part of determining a diagnosis of the patient. Those sources determined to be more reliable or trustable than others would thus be more highly “ranked” than the others. In the event that the medical professional determines that additional patient input is needed to make a diagnosis, the professional can generate a request for the same; otherwise, the professional can generate the diagnosis.
Furthermore, the medical professional could easily use their mind and pen and paper to convert non-standardized patient data into a standardized format compatible with health care data in the EHR database. For instance, if all patient names in the EHR database are listed last name, first name and the received patient identification data was first name, last name, the medical professional could easily rearrange such received patient identification data to be last name, first name.
That the process uses an application module, a computing apparatus, and an already trained neural network to carry out the abstract idea merely amounts to using computers or other machinery as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the claim describes at least one abstract idea. This is consistent with the Board Decision dated July 19, 2023 (“Board Decision”) at pages 11-12 and the top of page 15.
Furthermore, dependent claim 9 further defines the at least one abstract idea (and thus fails to make the at least one abstract idea any less abstract) because it recites how the additional patient information request is adaptively presented based on the retrieved medical history which also relates to managing interactions between people (“certain methods of organizing human activity”).
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system for automated healthcare service, the system comprising:
a patient apparatus comprising a patient interface (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) to receive patient input comprising patient identification data and symptom data (extra-solution activity (receiving data, selecting data to be manipulated, etc.) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
an network-based electronic health record (EHR) database coupled to the patient apparatus and being remote to the patient apparatus (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the EHR database comprises medical history information related to the patient retrievable from the patient apparatus based on the patient input (extra-solution activity (receiving data, selecting data to be manipulated, etc.) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), the network-based EHR database being remote from the patient apparatus (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
a medical information communication application (MICA) module (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) coupled to the patient apparatus and the EHR database to receive the patient input and to retrieve the medical history information related to the patient, the MICA module retrieves reference information external from the EHR database based on the patient input and retrieved medical history information (extra-solution activity (receiving data, selecting data to be manipulated, etc.) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and implements a trustability analysis for the retrieved reference information to select reference information from the retrieved reference information, the selection of the reference information is based on ranking of trustability factors assigned to each retrieved reference information during the trustability analysis; and
a computing apparatus (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) coupled to receive the patient input, the retrieved medical history information, and the selected reference information (extra-solution activity (receiving data, selecting data to be manipulated, etc.) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), the computing apparatus comprising a diagnostic module comprising a recurrent neural network (RNN) or deep neural network (DNN) pre-trained using one or more medical databases (merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); mere field of use limitation as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(h); using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) to perform an analysis for the patient input, the retrieved medical history information, and the selected reference information using procedures comprising preprocessing, segmentation, region of interest analysis, evaluation, and classification (mere field of use limitation as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(h); merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
wherein in response to the analysis indicating a need for additional patient input, the computing apparatus generates a request for additional patient input, the request is transmitted to the patient apparatus for the patient to respond (extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
wherein in response to the analysis indicating no additional patient input needed, the computing apparatus generates one or more diagnostic results;
wherein at least some of the at least some of the patient input is automatically (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) converted to a standardized format that is compatible with that of patient health care data in the EHR database; and
using the standardized data to update the EHR database, the standardized data being stored in the HER database (extra-solution activity (updating activity log) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of receiving patient input, retrieving medical history, retrieving reference information, and transmitting the information request, the Examiner submits that these additional limitations merely add insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated; transmitting data) to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the additional limitations of the patient apparatus, patient interface, network-based EHR database being remote from the patient apparatus, MICA module, computing apparatus, diagnostic module, RNN or DNN, and format conversion occurring “automatically,” the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools at a high level of generality to perform the above-noted abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of the RNN or DNN specifically being pre-trained using one or more medical databases, the Examiner submits that this limitation does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Furthermore, merely reciting that the RNN/DNN is generically pre-trained using one or more medical databases amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). For instance, what does the “pre-training” process entail? What type of information is in the one or more “medical databases”? It is not known.
Claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are not patent eligible. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), pp. 10, 14. An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment. Id. Requirements that the machine learning model be “iteratively trained” or dynamically adjusted do not represent a technological improvement because iterative training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), p. 12. “[T]he way machine learning works is the inputs are defined, the model is trained, and then the algorithm is actually updated and improved over time based on the input.” Id.
Furthermore, the additional limitation of the diagnostic module performing an analysis “using procedures comprising preprocessing, segmentation, region of interest analysis, evaluation, and classification,” amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). For instance, what does the preprocessing of the patient input, medical history information, and selected reference information entail? How is the patient input, medical history information, and selected reference information segmented? How does the region of interest analysis proceed? What does the evaluation and classification entail? It is not known. Furthermore, such limitations do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Regarding the additional limitations of using the standardized data to update the EHR database such that the standardized data is stored in the EHR database, the Examiner submits that these additional limitations merely add insignificant extra-solution activity (updating an activity log) to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For these reasons, independent claim 8 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is consistent with the Board Decision at pages 14-15.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 10: This claim recites that the additional information request is presented via text, audio, etc. and thus does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the process steps are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 11: This claim recites that the additional information request includes questions and thus does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the process steps are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). This claim also notes how the answers are transmitted back to the computing apparatus which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 12: This claim recites that the additional information request is a request to use a measurement apparatus and thus does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the process steps are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 13: This claim notes that usage instructions for the measurement apparatus are presented on the patient apparatus and thus amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity such as transmitting data (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 14: This claim calls for “real-time guidance” to be enabled when the measurement apparatus is used and thus amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity such as transmitting data (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 15: This claim recites that the measurement apparatus is a “self-measurement” apparatus which and thus does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the process steps are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Thus, when the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 8 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is consistent with the Board Decision at pages 16-18.
Regarding the additional limitations of the patient apparatus, patient interface, network-based EHR database being remote from the patient apparatus, MICA module, computing apparatus, diagnostic module, RNN or DNN, and format conversion occurring “automatically,” the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools at a high level of generality to perform the above-noted abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of the RNN or DNN specifically being pre-trained using one or more medical databases, the Examiner submits that this limitation does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Furthermore, merely reciting that the RNN/DNN is generically pre-trained using one or more medical databases amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). For instance, what does the “pre-training” process entail? What type of information is in the one or more “medical database”? It is not known.
Claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are not patent eligible. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), pp. 10, 14. An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment. Id. Requirements that the machine learning model be “iteratively trained” or dynamically adjusted do not represent a technological improvement because iterative training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), p. 12. “[T]he way machine learning works is the inputs are defined, the model is trained, and then the algorithm is actually updated and improved over time based on the input.” Id.
Furthermore, the additional limitation of the diagnostic module performing an analysis “using procedures comprising preprocessing, segmentation, region of interest analysis, evaluation, and classification,” amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). For instance, what does the preprocessing of the patient input, medical history information, and selected reference information entail? How is the patient input, medical history information, and selected reference information segmented? How does the region of interest analysis proceed? What does the evaluation and classification entail? It is not known. Furthermore, such limitations do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Regarding the additional limitations of receiving patient input, retrieving medical history, retrieving reference information, transmitting data back to the computing apparatus, and presenting usage instructions to the user which the Examiner submits merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding the additional limitations of using the standardized data to update the EHR database such that the standardized data is stored in the EHR database which the Examiner submits merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of updating an activity log. See Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1754 (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 10: This claim recites that the additional information request is presented via text, audio, etc. and thus does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the process steps are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 11: This claim recites that the additional information request includes questions and thus does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the process steps are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). This claim also notes how the answers are transmitted back to the computing apparatus which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claim 12: This claim recites that the additional information request is a request to use a measurement apparatus and thus does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the process steps are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 13: This claim notes that usage instructions for the measurement apparatus are presented on the patient apparatus and thus amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity such as transmitting data (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claim 14: This claim calls for “real-time guidance” to be enabled when the measurement apparatus is used and thus amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity such as transmitting data (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claim 15: This claim recites that the measurement apparatus is a “self-measurement” apparatus which and thus does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the process steps are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Therefore, claims 8-15 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
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, Jason Dunham, can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights