DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the claims as amended do not recite an abstract idea using generic computing components, but rather recites a specific technical implementation where physical actuators respond automatically to sensor data. Examiner asserts that the recitation of the use of actuators and sensors at [0093] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of the sensors and actuators, however the configuration of these generic devices amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely automating the process without human intervention is the result of the use of the generic computer components. The use of the sensors and actuators for the monitoring, however because of the generic nature of the configuration of these devices, this still recites mere computer implementation and the “real time” automated aspect of these devices for monitoring do not demonstrate a technology improvement. The configuration of these generic devices amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely automating the process without human intervention is the result of the use of the generic computer devices, see MPEP 2106.05(f), specifically” "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” The lack of specification for the use of the actuators and sensors for the automated “feedback loop” does not demonstrate a technical improvement nor solution. Further as described in the rejection below, the use of the IoT devices recites generating training data for the generic machine learning process. Again, the automated nature of using these generic computer components of the sensor and actuator do not demonstrate a technology improvement. The “AI at the edge for local decision making and recommendations” recites the use of generic computing device to improve the speed and efficient of the abstract idea does not recite an improvement nor a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(f), specifically” "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).”.
Applicant further argues that the claims do involve more than performance of well understood, routine, and conventional activities. Examiner asserts that as a whole, there is no indication that the claims involve more that the performance of well understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See rejection as presented in this Office Action for the Step 2B analysis, as there is no indication in the Applicant’s own disclosure of such activity beyond well understood, routine, and conventional as noted in the citation of the Applicant’s Specification and relevant case law, See MPEP 216.05(d)(I), “Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Applicant’s Specification does not recite a specific configuration of the sensor and actuator devices to perform the abstract idea. Use of the IoT devices recites data for the training of the generic machine learning modeling and thus recites mere computer implementation without providing significantly more to the judicial exception. Use of these generic computer devices to provide more data for the system and improve efficacy to reflect treatment plan results in a “quick and timely manner” and providing a continuous data stream does not recite an improvement, see MPEP 2106.05(a)II, particularly “Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology” and see MPEP 2106.05(f), specifically” "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).”.
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, 12, 23, 34, 35, 37-40, 42-45, 47, and 48 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
It is appropriate for the Examiner to determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test as recited in the following Steps: 1, 2A, and 2B, see MPEP 2106(III.).
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 1:
First, the Examiner is to establish whether the claim falls within any statutory category including a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, see MPEP 2106.03(II.) and MPEP 2106.03(I).
Claims 12, 39-43 are related to a system (i.e., a computing device), and claims 1, 34-38 are also related to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claims 1-17 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories. Regarding claims 23, 44-48, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium and are therefore within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong One:
Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test demonstrates whether a clam is directed to a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(I.). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, where Prong One establishes the judicial exception. Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, 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. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes, see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(1.) and 2106.04(a)(2).
Representative independent claim 12 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 12 recites:
A computing device comprising:
a processor;
a memory comprising computer code executed using the processor, in which the computer code implements:
receiving, via an application programming interface (API) over a computer network, patient assessment data from an electronic health record system;
determining assessment information based on the patient assessment data comprising a plurality of scores for a plurality of categories representing skills of a client;
executing one or more artificial intelligence algorithms to generate an initial candidate treatment plan data based on the received patient assessment data, the assessment information, and one or more clinical executable rules selected from a clinical knowledge database, wherein the generated initial candidate treatment plan is sent to a client device in real-time and wherein the one or more artificial intelligence algorithms are trained based on:
a first training set created from input provider data from a care provider computing device, biometric data of the client collected from one or more sensors of one or more Internet of Things devices, biometric data interpretation rules collected from an artificial intelligence application configured to interpreted the biometric data of the client to provide recommendations for the care of the client, and input observer data from an observer computing device, behavioral and analytical data obtained from interactions by the client with an interactive electronic game that is adjusted based on the client to elicit one or more types of responses, and record and analyzed conversational tone and mood data of one or more individuals in a physical environment adjacent the client; and
a second training set created by crawling one or more external healthcare industry specific research data to generate the one or more clinical executable rules;
generating and providing, by the computing device, a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising the generated initial candidate treatment plan data;
receiving result data while implementing the generated initial candidate treatment plan data from one or more sensors and one or more actuators coupled to the client device in real-time, wherein one or more sensors and one or more actuators automatically adjust treatment delivery parameter based on the received result data without human intervention;
updating the generated initial candidate treatment plan data based on the received result data in real-time and one or more treatment goals to generate a revised candidate treatment plan data;
updating a candidate record data with the sent treatment plan;
determining a plurality of time periods to implement the sent treatment plan upon updating the candidate record data;
generating and providing a modified graphical user interface (GUI) comprising notification to a plurality of devices indicating the availability of the updated candidate record data and the determined plurality of time periods to implemented the sent treatment plan via a computer network in real-time; and
monitoring implementation of the sent revised candidate treatment plan in real-time, wherein the real-time monitoring triggers automatic modification of actuator outputs to optimize treatment efficacy based on detected biometric changes.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing interactions between people as the following abstract limitations are for generating a revised candidate treatment plan data and indicating the availability of the data to monitor its implementation:
“determining” assessment information based on the patient assessment data comprising a plurality of scores for a plurality of categories representing skills of a client, which is an abstract limitation of an analysis for an assessment based on data from a patient to get the scores related to the skills of a client,
“generate” an initial candidate treatment plan data based on the received patient assessment data, the assessment information, and one or more clinical executable rules, which is an abstract limitation of analysis of making the initial treatment plan for the patient based on the received data,
“adjust” treatment delivery parameter based on received result data, which is an abstract limitation of analysis of the data to make changes of the treatment delivery parameters for the patient’s treatment plan,
“updating” the generated initial candidate treatment plan data based on the received result data in real-time and one or more treatment goals to generate a revised candidate treatment plan data, which is an abstract limitation of further analysis of the patient’s treatment plan for updating it based on the received data,
“updating” a candidate record data with the sent treatment plan, which is an abstract limitation of including the treatment data into the record data after determining the treatment plan for the patient,
“determining” a plurality of time periods to implement the sent treatment plan upon updating the candidate record data, which is an abstract limitation of an analysis and observation of the time periods to implement the treatment plan after it is updated into the record data,
“indicating” the availability of the updated candidate record data and the determined plurality of time periods to implemented the sent treatment plan, which is an abstract limitation of analysis of the availability of the updated record data and previously determined time periods to implement the treatment plan for the treatment of the patient,
“monitoring” implementation of the sent revised candidate treatment plan, which is an abstract limitation for the management of the treatment plan of the patient candidate,
“optimize” treatment efficacy based on detected biometric changes, which is an abstract limitation of analysis for the optimization of the patient’s treatment plan based on the previous abstract monitoring.
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps for generating a revised candidate treatment plan data and indicating the availability of the data to monitor its implementation, and therefore recite managing interactions between people which includes social activities related to the management of the treatment plan of a patient.
Any limitations not identified above as part of a mental process are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., processor) and will be discussed in further detail below.
The abstract idea recited in claims 1 and 23 are similar to that of claim 12.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., processor) and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below:
In relation to claims 34, 39, 44, a treatment plan has to be approved before it can be received by a client, and therefore merely further define steps that were indicated as being part of the abstract idea. In relation to claims 35, 40, 45, once the revised treatment plan is given to the client, data needs to be recorded based on the results of the treatment, and therefore merely further define steps that were indicated as being part of the abstract idea. In relation to claims 37, 42, 47, there is a determination to decide if a revised treatment plan complies with the rules in clinical knowledge, and therefore merely further define steps that were indicated as being part of the abstract idea. In relation to claims 38, 43, 48, there is a determination that when there is no compliance with clinical rues, the treatment plan is updated to make it compliant, and therefore merely further define steps that were indicated as being part of the abstract idea.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrates 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 exceptions into a “practical application,” see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(2.) and 2106.04(d)(I.).
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 at least one “abstract idea”):
A computing device comprising:
a processor;
a memory comprising computer code executed using the processor, in which the computer code implements (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
receiving, via an application programming interface (API) over a computer network, patient assessment data from an electronic health record system (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.);
determining assessment information based on the patient assessment data comprising a plurality of scores for a plurality of categories representing skills of a client;
executing one or more artificial intelligence algorithms to generate an initial candidate treatment plan data based on the received patient assessment data, the assessment information, and one or more clinical executable rules selected from a clinical knowledge database (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), wherein the generated initial candidate treatment plan is sent to a client device in real-time (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and wherein the one or more artificial intelligence algorithms are trained based on:
a first training set created from input provider data from a care provider computing device, biometric data of the client collected from one or more sensors of one or more Internet of Things devices, biometric data interpretation rules collected from an artificial intelligence application configured to interpreted the biometric data of the client to provide recommendations for the care of the client, and input observer data from an observer computing device, behavioral and analytical data obtained from interactions by the client with an interactive electronic game that is adjusted based on the client to elicit one or more types of responses, and record and analyzed conversational tone and mood data of one or more individuals in a physical environment adjacent the client; and
a second training set created by crawling one or more external healthcare industry specific research data to generate the one or more clinical executable rules (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
generating and providing, by the computing device, a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising the generated initial candidate treatment plan data (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
receiving result data while implementing the generated initial candidate treatment plan data from one or more sensors and one or more actuators coupled to the client device in real-time (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.), wherein one or more sensors and one or more actuators automatically (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) adjust treatment delivery parameter based on the received result data without human intervention;
updating the generated initial candidate treatment plan data based on the received result data in real-time and one or more treatment goals to generate a revised candidate treatment plan data;
updating a candidate record data with the sent treatment plan;
determining a plurality of time periods to implement the sent treatment plan upon updating the candidate record data;
generating and providing a modified graphical user interface (GUI) comprising notification to a plurality of devices indicating the availability of the updated candidate record data and the determined plurality of time periods to implemented the sent treatment plan via a computer network in real-time; and (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
monitoring implementation of the sent revised candidate treatment plan in real-time (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f), wherein the real-time monitoring triggers automatic modification of actuator outputs to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f) optimize treatment efficacy based on detected biometric changes).
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:
the overall computing device comprising a processor and memory comprising computer code executed using the processor, in which the computer code implements steps,
use of a clinical knowledge database,
the generated initial candidate treatment plan is sent to a client device in real-time,
executing one or more artificial intelligence algorithms wherein the one or more artificial intelligence algorithms are trained based on: a first training set created from input provider data from a care provider computing device, biometric data of the client collected from one or more sensors of one or more Internet of Things devices, biometric data interpretation rules collected from an artificial intelligence application configured to interpreted the biometric data of the client to provide recommendations for the care of the client, and input observer data from an observer computing device, behavioral and analytical data obtained from interactions by the client with an interactive electronic game that is adjusted based on the client to elicit one or more types of responses, and record and analyzed conversational tone and mood data of one or more individuals in a physical environment adjacent the client; and a second training set created by crawling one or more external healthcare industry specific research data to generate the one or more clinical executable rules,
generating and providing, by the computing device, a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising the generated initial candidate treatment plan data,
use of the sensors and actuators to perform steps of the abstract idea automatically without human intervention,
generating and providing a modified graphical user interface (GUI) comprising notification to a plurality of devices via a computer network in real-time,
the monitoring being performed in “real-time”, and
real time monitoring triggers automatic modification of actuator outputs,
the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0038] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the overall computing device using generic processor and memory. [0011, 0046] recites the use of a clinical knowledge database as a generic storage device where data is selected from. [0051] recites the use of a generic device where information is sent to in real time. [0057] recites the use of a generic AI algorithm where data is inputted as described in [0093, 0094] which can be called “training” the model using the first and second training sets which comes from data as described in [0054, 0058, 0060, 0079, 0094] which includes gathering data from the IoT devices, interpretation rules, and the other data from the first and second sets; however, because of the generic nature of the inputting as training, this would amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computing process. [0093] recites the use of the sensors and actuators, however the configuration of these generic devices amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely automating the process without human intervention is the result of the use of the generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f), specifically” "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” [0038, 0039] recites the use of a generic GUI that is used to carry out the initial candidate treatment plan data. [0062, 0088, 0097] recites the generation of a “modified” GUI that provides notifications to devices via a network in real time, however there is no indication of an improved technology by generically reciting that the GUI is “modified”. [0077] recites the “real-time” nature of the monitoring being done by the system, however this demonstrates the mere automation of the process using generic computing components. Additionally, claim 23 recites other generic computing components of a “non-transitory computer readable medium” as further described in [00125]. [0093] recites the use of the sensors and actuators for the monitoring, however because of the generic nature of the configuration of these devices, this still recites mere computer implementation and the “real time” automated aspect of these devices for monitoring do not demonstrate a technology improvement. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Regarding the additional limitations of:
receiving, via an application programming interface (API) over a computer network, patient assessment data from an electronic health record system, and
receiving result data while implementing the generated initial candidate treatment plan data from one or more sensors and one or more actuators coupled to the client device in real-time,
these are merely pre-solution activities. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). [0041] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of an API over a network for receiving assessment data from another data source of the EHR system. [0093] recites the use of sensors and actuators from the client device to receive result data in real time. The sensors and other generic computing components are used to perform actions for the system including data gathering for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activities.
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 instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to generate a revised candidate treatment plan data and indicating the availability of the data to monitor its implementation, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 12 and analogous independent claims 1 and 23 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below:
Claims 34, 39, and 44: These claims specify specific types of data to be gathered and displayed (sending the plans to an approval device and client device) and therefore merely represent insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Claims 35, 40, and 45: These claims specify specific types of data to be gathered and displayed (displaying the summary of data to a GUI) and therefore merely represent insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone and in ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, the independent 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 claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(II.). Further, it may need to be established, when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, that the additional elements recite well understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding the additional limitations of:
the overall computing device comprising a processor and memory comprising computer code executed using the processor, in which the computer code implements steps,
use of a clinical knowledge database,
the generated initial candidate treatment plan is sent to a client device in real-time,
executing one or more artificial intelligence algorithms wherein the one or more artificial intelligence algorithms are trained based on: a first training set created from input provider data from a care provider computing device, biometric data of the client collected from one or more sensors of one or more Internet of Things devices, biometric data interpretation rules collected from an artificial intelligence application configured to interpreted the biometric data of the client to provide recommendations for the care of the client, and input observer data from an observer computing device, behavioral and analytical data obtained from interactions by the client with an interactive electronic game that is adjusted based on the client to elicit one or more types of responses, and record and analyzed conversational tone and mood data of one or more individuals in a physical environment adjacent the client; and a second training set created by crawling one or more external healthcare industry specific research data to generate the one or more clinical executable rules,
generating and providing, by the computing device, a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising the generated initial candidate treatment plan data,
generating and providing a modified graphical user interface (GUI) comprising notification to a plurality of devices via a computer network in real-time, and
the monitoring being performed in “real-time”,
the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362).”)). [0038] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the overall computing device using generic processor and memory. [0011, 0046] recites the use of a clinical knowledge database as a generic storage device where data is selected from. [0051] recites the use of a generic device where information is sent to in real time. [0057] recites the use of a generic AI algorithm where data is inputted as described in [0093, 0094] which can be called “training” the model using the first and second training sets which comes from data as described in [0054, 0058, 0060, 0079, 0094] which includes gathering data from the IoT devices, interpretation rules, and the other data from the first and second sets; however, because of the generic nature of the inputting as training, this would amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computing process. [0093] recites the use of the sensors and actuators, however the configuration of these generic devices amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely automating the process without human intervention is the result of the use of the generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f), specifically” "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” [0038, 0039] recites the use of a generic GUI that is used to carry out the initial candidate treatment plan data. [0062, 0088, 0097] recites the generation of a “modified” GUI that provides notifications to devices via a network in real time, however there is no indication of an improved technology by generically reciting that the GUI is “modified”. [0077] recites the “real-time” nature of the monitoring being done by the system, however this demonstrates the mere automation of the process using generic computing components. Additionally, claim 23 recites other generic computing components of a “non-transitory computer readable medium” as further described in [00125]. [0093] recites the use of the sensors and actuators for the monitoring, however because of the generic nature of the configuration of these devices, this still recites mere computer implementation and the “real time” automated aspect of these devices for monitoring do not demonstrate a technology improvement. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The retrieving of information from the database and the use of connected devices to send information via a network for the mere computer implementation recites well understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Regarding the additional limitations of:
receiving, via an application programming interface (API) over a computer network, patient assessment data from an electronic health record system, and
receiving result data while implementing the generated initial candidate treatment plan data from one or more sensors and one or more actuators coupled to the client device in real-time,
these are merely pre-solution activities. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362).”). [0041] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of an API over a network for receiving assessment data from another data source of the EHR system. [0093] recites the use of sensors and actuators from the client device to receive result data in real time. The sensors and other generic computing components are used to perform actions for the system including data gathering for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activities and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The transmission of data from one device to another using connected devices and a network recites well understood, routine, and conventional activities.
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 exceptions 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.
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and therefore claims 1, 12, 23, 34, 35, 37-40, 42-45, 47, and 48 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS whose telephone number is (571)272-6719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM EST.
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 B 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.
/CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights