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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to the amendments filed January 28, 2025.
Claim 15 has been previously canceled.
Claims 1, 8, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 2-7, 9-14,16, and 18-20 are in their original presentation or a previous presentation.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
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 1-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claim 17), machines (claims 1 and 8), which are recited as methods, and systems that perform the steps and/or functions of:
A storage apparatus configured to receive communications from the server arrangement and record caregiver queries and responses to caregiver queries, wherein caregiver queries comprise patient specific shift needs,
a query processor apparatus configured to collect data from the storage apparatus and form caregiver queries based on query selection data, data point value metrics, and response rate information,
an artificial intelligence preparation module connected to the storage apparatus and configured to receive the recorded results from the storage apparatus, wherein the artificial intelligence preparation module vectorizes data from the recorded results into sparse vectors and text from the recorded results into dense vectors, wherein sparse vectors and dense vectors capture physical, mental, social, and behavioral data points of patients and their caregivers in time series; and
a training system module connected to the artificial intelligence preparation module and the storage apparatus configured to receive the recorded results and the sparse and dense vectors wherein the training system module determines a portion of the query selection data by assessing caregiver personnel scheduling tasks based on the recorded results and the sparse and dense vectors received;
wherein queries formed by the query processor apparatus are provided to the server arrangement and user device to solicit query responses; and
further wherein the training system module comprises a multivariate deep learning neural network trained and retrained using normalized client data and client outcomes.
Step 2A: Prong 1
When taken individually and as a whole, the steps corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as “mathematical concepts”, which are mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I), “mental processes”, which are concepts capable of being practically performed in the human mind or with the aid of a pencil and paper, even if the process is recited as being performed by a machine (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III), and “certain methods of organizing human activity”, which are interactions between individuals that can include: fundamental economic principles or practices; commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III).
The claim is directed to a system to perform the process of soliciting query responses, which is performed by the system forming caregiver queries based on query selection data, data point value metrics, and response rate information based on the recorded results and sparse and dense vectors received, determining a portion of the query selection data by assessing caregiver personnel scheduling and tasks based on the recorded results and the sparse and dense vectors received, wherein queries formed are provided to solicit query responses. This is certain methods of organizing human activity because it is managing the behavior of the caregiver by giving them rules or instructions in the form of the selected caregiver queries.
Step 2A: Prong 2
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to be considered a practical application because the additional elements amount to: insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), generally linking the application of the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment (2106.05(h)), or mere instructions to apply it with a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), as discussed below.
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
The steps of receiving communications from the server arrangement and recording caregiver queries and responses to caregiver queries and providing recorded results to a storage element is an example of mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.5(g)).
The steps specifying: the caregiver queries comprise patient specific shift needs, the caregiver queries being formed based on query selection data, data point value metrics, and response rate information, and the query selection data is determined by assessing caregiver personnel scheduling and tasks, are examples of selecting by type or source the data to be manipulated, which is an extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The steps of providing the formed queries to the server arrangement and user device to solicit query responses is an example of necessary data outputting. Necessary data outputting is an insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Insignificant extra-solution activities are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g))
Generally Linking Implementation a Particular Technological Environment or Field of Use
The steps reciting generically recited components of a computer system, such as the system comprising a user device, a server arrangement connected to the user device, and the different systems, apparatuses, and modules, only serve to generally link the implementation of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which would be a computer system comprising a server arrangement, a user device, and the different components.
Generally linking the application of the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Mere Instructions to Apply the Abstract Idea Using a Computer
The steps reciting the use of computer components, such as the storage apparatus being configured to receive communications from the server arrangement and record caregiver queries and responses to caregiver queries and provide recorded results to a storage element, the query processor apparatus being configured to collect data from the storage element and form caregiver queries, the artificial intelligence preparation module being configured to receive the recorded results from the storage element and vectorize data from the recorded results into sparse vectors and dense vectors, the training system that receives the recorded results and the sparse and dense vectors, the training system determining a portion of the query selection data by assessing caregiver personnel scheduling tasks based on the recorded results and the sparse and dense vectors received, the query processor apparatus providing the formed queries to the server arrangement and user device, and the training system comprises a multivariate deep learning neural network trained and retrained using normalized client data and client outcomes to match caregivers with patients, serve as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer. Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to be considered a significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements amount to: insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), mere instructions to apply it with a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), generally linking the application of the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), or a well-understood, routine, and conventional limitation (MPEP 2106.05(d)), as discussed below.
The steps addressed above in Step 2A: Prong 2, when considered again under Step 2B are not considered to make the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because those steps, when considered additionally with regards to Step 2B, are still considered to be either insignificant extra-solution activity, mere instructions to apply an abstract idea with a computer, or generally linking the application of the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment, which are types of limitations that are not sufficient to make the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.I.A).
The steps recited as either being part of the abstract idea or insignificant extra-solution activity are all examples of at least one of: storing and retrieving data from a memory (recording caregiver queries and responses to caregiver queries and collecting data from the storage element, the artificial intelligence preparation module receiving the recorded results from the storage element), sending and receiving data over a network (receiving communications from the server arrangement, providing the queries to the server arrangement and user device), electronic recordkeeping (recording the information in the storage element to be used later), or performing repetitive calculations (forming the queries based on the analysis of the data). All of those functions have been identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a generic computer that are not significantly more than the abstract idea when claimed broadly or as an extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d).II).
The recited computer components (e.g., user device, server arrangement) are all generically recited components (see specification, pg. 8, 9). The encoding processes used to vectorize the data are conventional or commercially available encoding processes (see specification, pg. 11, “Natural language encoding process 425 transforms the data point(s) for each data category into an appropriately encoded sparse vector, through the use of one-hot encoding or other similar sparse vector encoding techniques. At the same time, encoding process 430 transforms text found in the data (for example, the end of day notes) into a dense vector representation, by use of dense word vector encoding techniques such as word2vec or GloVe. These dense word vector encoding models are in certain circumstances pre-trained with outside data or trained using internally generated data, or a combination of both.”). Commercially available components, generic computer components, and specially-programmed computer components performing the functions of a generic computer are not considered to be amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
When considered as a whole, the components do not provide anything that is not present when the component parts are considered individually. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation, the system as a whole is a system of user devices connected to a server over a network that records queries and user data including responses to queries. The system then evaluates the queries, user data, and selection rules to form queries to be provided to the patient by transmitting information over a network. This is the system performing the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activities through these generically described devices performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(d).II).
Dependent Claim Analysis
Claims 2-7 are ultimately dependent from Claim(s) 1 and includes all the limitations of Claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim(s) 2-7 recite the same mental processes of claim 1.
Claims 2-7 all recite additional limitations that amount to: an additional instance of the judicial exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using a computer.
Claim 2 recites additional limitations that amount to performing an additional instance of the same judicial exception. In this instance, the system is receiving the information regarding the patient response, making a determination that the patient has not responded within a predefined period of time, and notifying a caregiver. This is also performing a mental process with limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, such as mere data gathering (receiving the data regarding patient response), selecting by type and source the data to be manipulated (using patient data regarding whether they have responded within a predefined amount of time), and necessary data outputting (transmitting the message in response to a determination the patient has not responded) (MPEP 2106.05(g)). These extra-solution activity are executed by the system performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a generic computer, such as repetitive calculations (comparing the patient response data to determine whether it is or is not within a predefined time period) and sending and receiving information over a network (transmitting the message to the caregiver) (MPEP 2106.05(d).II).
Claim 3 recites additional limitations that amount to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The system is merely receiving additional patient data. This data gathering is performed by the system receiving the data over a network, storing the data in a memory, and electronic recordkeeping (by attaching a timestamp to the data and placing it in an index position accordingly). These are all well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(d).II).
Claim 4 recites additional limitations that amount to selecting by type and source the data to be manipulated, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 5-7 recite additional limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claims 5-7 all recite using computer programs with artificial intelligence algorithms to perform the steps of the abstract idea.
Claims 9-14 and 16 are ultimately dependent from Claim(s) 8 and includes all the limitations of Claim(s) 8. Therefore, claim(s) 2-5 and 7 recite the same mental processes of claim 8.
Claim 9-11 recites additional limitations that are the same or substantially similar to the intelligence preparation and training systems limitations recited in claim 1. Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as those limitations that were addressed in claim 1.
Claims 12-14 and 16 are systems claims dependent from claim 8 that recite additional limitations that are the same or substantially similar to the limitations of claims 2-4 and 7, respectively. Claims 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 101 for the same reasons as claims 2-4 and 7.
Claims 18-20 are method claims ultimately dependent from Claim(s) 17 and includes all the limitations of Claim(s) 17. Therefore, claim(s) 18-20 recite the same mental processes of claim 17.
Claim 18 recites additional limitations that amount to mere data gathering because it is reciting receiving and storing data. Mere data gathering is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is not sufficient to amount to a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analytical framework (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the data gathering is performed by the system storing data in a memory (adding the data to the record) and electronic recordkeeping (indexing the data according to a timestamp). Storing data in a memory and electronic recordkeeping are tasks that have been identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a general purpose computer when claimed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, which is insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analytical framework (MPEP 2106.05(d).II).
Claim 19 recites additional limitations that serve to identify by type or source the data to be manipulated, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is not sufficient to amount to a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analytical framework (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 20 recites additional limitations that amount to performing an additional mental process and necessary data outputting. Determining that the caregiver has not responded to the query within an assigned time period is performing a mental process because it is evaluating the amount of time that has elapsed without a response and the threshold amount of time and making a judgment as to whether the threshold amount of time has passed. Transmitting the messages is an example of the insignificant extra-solution activity of necessary data outputting because it only generally describes delivering the message to the caregiver based on the judgment that the threshold amount of time has elapsed. Insignificant extra-solution activity and additional abstract ideas are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2). Additionally, transmitting the messages would be an example of sending and receiving information over a network, which has been identified as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function of a general purpose computer when claimed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, which is insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
112(a) Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed January 28, 2025, with respect to the 112(a) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(a) rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
101 Rejections
Applicant's arguments filed January 28, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the argument that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the claims recite limitations that do not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract idea, this argument is not persuasive.
As outlined above in the 101 rejection under the analysis performed at Step 2A Prong 1, an abstract idea that is recited in the claims was listed, along with analysis explaining why the relevant limitations recite an abstract idea. The determination of whether the claim “is directed to” an abstract idea takes place in the analysis performed at Step 2A Prong 2.
Because the rejection identifies the limitations of the claims that “set forth or describe” the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 and detail why the additional limitations are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, the arguments that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea are not persuasive..
With respect to the argument at page 12 of the Remarks, this argument is not persuasive.
The rejection did consider the claimed invention as a whole and determined the ordered combination of elements did not add anything that was not already present in the components individually (see Final Rejection, pg. 8).
The Applicant has failed to point out how the Examiner erred in making this determination beyond asserting that such analysis was not performed.
With respect to the argument based on the example from 2106.04(a)(1), this argument is not persuasive.
The example in the MPEP was considered not to recite an abstract idea because the limitation was solely about the training of the neural network. There was no action taken based on results from the neural network that could be considered to recite an abstract idea. In the present claims, this is not the case. The claimed invention recites training an artificial intelligence module, but it uses that trained model to select queries to solicit responses. This is a step that can be considered organizing human activity.
Therefore, the present claimed invention does recite an abstract idea while the example does not. For this reason, this guidance is not applicable to the facts of the case at hand, and this section of the MPEP is not relevant to the analysis performed in this application.
With respect to the arguments based on McRo, the analysis does not tie how the present claimed invention should be eligible based on the holding in the McRo case. The system from McRo and the morph weights included in the claim were considered to be eligible because it improved the computer system’s ability to generate computer animations synched to an audio file in a way that was both an improvement over prior systems and not an improvement that comes solely from automation using a computer (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
In the present claims, the claim does not provide an improvement to the functionality of the computer. Rather, it is invoking the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. This is further supported by the specification’s description of the vector encoding as being one of several possible conventional and/or commercially available vector encoding programs (e.g., word2vec or GLoVe). Therefore, the steps of receiving the data, encoding the data, and then providing the encoded data to the system to make the determination is just using a computer to apply the abstract idea.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the arguments against the 101 rejections are not persuasive, and the 101 rejection will be sustained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY D MOSELEY whose telephone number is (469)295-9099. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 10:00-6:00 CT.
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, Peter Choi, can be reached at 469-295-9171. 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.
/GREGORY D. MOSELEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681