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 action is in reply to the response filed 09/24/2025.
Claims 1, 3, 6-10, 12-14, 17, 19-22, 25-28 and 30-34 have been amended. Claims 23-24 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-22 and 25-34 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13 and 17 are objected to for minor informalities.
Claim 1 recites “active-treatment information for associated with a current diabetes condition ailing an individual” which does not make sense grammatically. For purposes of examination, the above limitation will be construed as “active-treatment information associated with a current diabetes condition ailing an individual” removing the “for.”
Claims 13 and 17 are objected to for the same reasons.
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 1-22 and 25-34 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.
Claims 1-12, 25-28, 31 and 33 are drawn to a “one or more non-transitory media having computer-readable instructions” for dynamic management of treatments, which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., manufacture). Claims 13-16, 29-30 and 32 are drawn to one or more non-transitory media, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture). Claims 17-22 are drawn to one or more non-transitory media for dynamic management of treatments, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture). Claim 34 is drawn to a method of treating an individual for a condition associated with asthma, which is within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process).
Claims 1-12, 25-28, 31 and 33 (Group I) recite one or more non-transitory media having computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to facilitate a method of treating an individual for a condition associated with diabetes (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), the method comprising:
Identifying, at the one more hardware processors (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), active-treatment information associated with a current diabetes condition ailing an individual, searching a data structure based on a unique identifier associated with the active-treatment information to produce one or more characteristics of at least one active treatment indicated by the active-treatment information;
determining (i) a first set of filtering criteria, based on the one or more characteristics of the at least one active treatment that indicates a treatment medication and (ii) a second set of filtering criteria, based on the current diabetes condition ailing the individual, that indicates the delivery mechanism; and
applying the first set of filtering criteria and the second set of filtering criteria to a set of potential treatments to produce a first subset of potential treatments for the current diabetes condition ailing the individual, that indicates the delivery mechanism;
determining a particular treatment for the individual based on the first subset of potential treatments and an electronic presentation of the first subset of potential treatments that includes a particular diabetes medication corresponding to the treatment medication and includes a diabetes medication delivery mechanism corresponding to the delivery mechanism; and
administering the particular diabetes medication to the individual via the diabetes medication delivery mechanism to treat the individual for the current diabetes condition ailing the individual (MPEP § 2106.05(h), generally linking).
Claim 13 recites one or more non-transitory media having computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to facilitate a method of treating an individual for a condition associated with heart diseases (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), the method comprising:
identifying, at one or more hardware processors (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), in response to an indication to provide active-treatment information associated with a current heart disease condition ailing an individual;
searching a data structure based on a unique identifier associated with the active-treatment information to produce one or more characteristics of at least one active treatment indicated by the active-treatment information;
determining (i) a first set of filtering criteria, based on the one or more characteristics of the at least one active treatment that indicates a treatment medication and (ii) a second set of filtering criteria, based on the current heart disease condition ailing the individual, that indicates a delivery mechanism; and
applying the first set of filtering criteria and the second set of filtering criteria to a set of potential treatments to produce a first subset of potential treatments for the current heart disease condition ailing the individual;
determining a particular treatment for the individual based on the first subset of potential treatments and an electronic presentation of the first subset of potential treatments that includes a particular heart disease medication corresponding to the treatment medication and includes a heart disease medication delivery mechanism corresponding to the delivery mechanism; and
administering the particular heart disease medication to the individual via the heart disease medication delivery mechanism to treat the individual for the current heart disease condition ailing the individual (MPEP § 2106.05(h), generally linking).
Claim 17 recites one or more non-transitory media having computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors configured cause the one or more hardware processors to facilitate a method of treating an individual for a condition associated with arthritis, the method comprising:
identifying, at one or more hardware processors (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), active-treatment information associated with a current arthritis condition ailing an individual;
searching a data structure based on a unique identifier associated with the active-treatment information to produce one or more characteristics of at least one active treatment indicated by the active-treatment information;
determining (i) a first set of filtering criteria, based on the one or more characteristics of the at least one active treatment, that indicates a treatment medication and (ii) a second set of filtering criteria based on the current arthritis condition ailing the individual, that indicates a delivery mechanism; and
applying the first set of filtering criteria and the second set of filtering criteria to a set of potential treatments to produce a first subset of potential treatments for the current arthritis condition ailing the individual
determining a particular treatment for the individual based on the first subset of potential treatments and an electronic presentation of the first subset of potential treatments that includes a particular arthritis medication corresponding to the treatment medication and includes an arthritis medication delivery mechanism corresponding to the delivery mechanism; and
administering the particular treatment to the individual via the arthritis medication delivery mechanism to treat the individual for the current arthritis condition ailing the individual (MPEP § 2106.05(h), generally linking).
Claim 34 recites a method of treating an individual for a condition associated with asthma, the method comprising:
identifying, at one or more hardware processors (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), active-treatment information associated with a current asthma condition ailing an individual;
searching a data structure based on a unique identifier associated with the active-treatment information to produce one or more characteristics of at least one active treatment indicated by the active-treatment information;
determining (i) a first set of filtering criteria, based on the one or more characteristics of the at least one active treatment that indicates a treatment medication and (ii) a second set of filtering criteria, based on the current asthma condition ailing the individual, that indicates the delivery mechanism; and
applying the first set of filtering criteria and the second set of filtering criteria to a set of potential treatments to produce a first subset of potential treatments for the current asthma condition ailing the individual;
determining a particular treatment for the individual, based on the first subset of potential treatment and an electronic presentation of the first subset of potential treatments that includes a particular asthma medication corresponding to the treatment medication and includes a asthma medication delivery mechanism corresponding to the delivery mechanism; and
administering a particular asthma medication to the individual via the asthma medication delivery mechanism to treat the individual for the current asthma condition ailing the individual (MPEP § 2106.05(h), generally linking).
The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Any underlined limitations not identified above as part of abstract idea are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claims 17-22 is substantially similar as the abstract idea for Claims 1-12 and 25-28 (Group I), 13-16, 29-30 and 32 (Group II) and Claim 34 (Group IV), because the only difference between is that the claims are drawn to different disease and/or statutory categories.
Dependent Claims 2-12, 14-16, 18-22, and 25-34 include other limitations, for example Claim 2 recites wherein the unique identifier is an assigned standardized concept unique identifier code, Claim 3 recites wherein the active-treatment information indicates a plurality of active treatments, and wherein each active treatment of the plurality of treatments is assigned a standardized concept unique identifier code, Claim 4 recites wherein the first set of filtering criteria indicates a particular active ingredient associated with controlling blood glucose in the individual, Claim 5 recites where the second set of filtering criteria indicates a particular delivery mechanism for delivering a blood glucose level targeting medication to the individual, Claim 6 recites wherein the delivery mechanism comprises intravenous or injection delivery, Claims 7 and 21 recite wherein the method further comprises identifying a third set of filtering criteria that indicates a treatment medication dosage and applying the third set of filtering criteria to the set of potential treatments, Claims 8, 9 and 16 recite wherein the method further comprises storing the set of potential treatments at a data store for future use and wherein the operations further comprise storing the second set of potential treatments at a data store for future use (MPEP § 2106.05(g), insignificant extra-solution activity), Claim 10 recites wherein the method further comprises communicating, at predetermined intervals, with a treatment electronic data repository, associated with the data structure, to dynamically update the potential treatments that meet one or both of the first set of filtering criteria and the second set of filtering criteria, Claim 11 recites wherein the data structure comprises a treatment electronic data repository associated with a web application program interface that is configured to provide a list of ingredients for each active treatment, of the active treatment information, communicated to the web application program interface (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it); Claim 12 recites wherein the administering further treats an asthma condition of the individual, Claim 14 recites wherein one or both based on the electronic presentation of the first subset of potential treatments: a particular course of treatment corresponding to the first set of filtering criteria indicating the particular heart disease medication is administered to the individual to treat the current heart disease condition of the individual, Claim 15 recites wherein the data structure comprises a treatment electronic data repository associated with a web application programming interface that provides a list of ingredients for each active treatment, of the active treatment information, communicated to the web application program interface (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), Claim 16 recites wherein one or both of the set of potential treatments and the first subset of the potential treatments are stored at a treatment electronic data store for future use (MPEP § 2106.05(g), insignificant extra-solution activity), and wherein at least one additional criteria is identified and applied to at least one of the set of potential treatments or first subset of the potential treatments, Claim 18 recites wherein the second set of filtering criteria indicates a particular delivery mechanism that is configured to deliver one or more of the first subset of potential treatments to the individual, Claim 19 recites wherein the method further comprise: storing one or both of the set of potential treatments and the first subset of the potential treatments at a treatment electronic data store for future use; and retrieving one or both of the set of potential treatments and the first subset of the potential treatments from the treatment electronic data store for use in management of treatments for the same condition for a second individual (MPEP § 2106.05(g), insignificant extra-solution activity), Claim 20 recites based on the electronic presentation of the first subset of potential treatments: a particular course of treatment corresponding to the first set of filtering criteria indicating the particular arthritis medication is administered to the individual to treat the current arthritis condition of the individual, Claim 22 recites wherein the delivery mechanism corresponds to delivery of a medication for arthritis, Claim 25 recites wherein the identifying of the active-treatment information is performed in response to receiving, at the one or more hardware processors (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), a request for active treatments currently utilized by the individual to treat one or more conditions, Claim 26 recites wherein the method further comprises accessing, from an electronic data store: (a) one or more active treatments indicated by the treatment information and (b) one or more corresponding unique identifiers for the one or more active treatments, Claim 27 recites wherein based on the electronic presentation of the first subset of potential treatments: a particular course of treatment, corresponding to the treatment medication and the delivery mechanism indicating insulin and intravenous injection delivery, respectively, is administered to the individual to treat the current diabetes condition of the individual, Claim 28 recites wherein the particular course of treatment comprises administration to the individual of a diabetes medication and a biomarker monitoring device, Claim 29 recites wherein the particular course of treatment comprises administering the biomarker monitoring device to the individual, Claim 30 recites wherein the particular course of treatment corresponds to intravenous or injection delivery of the first subset of potential treatments to the individual based on the second set of filtering criteria, Claim 31 recites wherein applying the first set of filtering criteria and second set of filtering criteria comprises applying the first of filtering criteria to the set of potential treatments to produce a second subset of potential treatments and applying a second set of filtering criteria to the second subset of potential treatments to produce the first subset of the potential treatment, and Claim 32 recites wherein the first set of filtering criteria comprises a heart disease targeting medication or drug, and Claim 33 recites wherein one or both of the first element and the delivery mechanism correspond to administration of a medication or drug that facilitates stable blood sugar levels in the individual, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea or contain additional elements discussed below, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1, 13 and 17.
Furthermore, Claims 1-22 and 25-34 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of one or more hardware processors, non-transitory computer readable medium, data structure, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs [0016, 0019 0043] of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f)
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea – for example, the recitation of retrieving data, which amounts to mere data gathering, and/or the recitation of storing data, which amounts to an insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g)
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Furthermore, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs [0016, 0043] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. non-transitory media, processors, data structure) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. storing and retrieving data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives query data, and transmits the data to an electronic interface over a network, for example the Internet;
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the current invention merely recites the storing of treatment data on a database and/or electronic memory;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the current invention recites storing treatment data in a database and/or electronic memory, and retrieving the treatment data from storage in order to analyze by apply various criteria;
Dependent Claims 2-12, 14-16 and 18-34 include other limitations, but none of these functions are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly represent no more than electronic recordkeeping (e.g. the storing feature of dependent Claims 8, 9, 19 and 26) and retrieving of data (e.g., retrieving feature of dependent Claim 19).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-22 and 25-34 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-22 and 25-34 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 (Amended Claims dated 06/30/2025) of copending Application No. 19/028,374 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite substantially the same subject matter. The instant application is narrower than the child application, and therefore it reads on the claims of the child application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2025 have been fully considered.
Interview
As indicated in the Interview Summary dated 09/15/2025, Examiner maintained during the interview that the claim amendments did not overcome the previous section 101 rejections.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues, citing to MPEP §2106.04(d)(2), that claim 1 recites determining a treatment (for a condition, i.e., diabetes, ailing an individual), along with an active ingredient for the treatment and a delivery mechanism for the active ingredient, and administering the treatment with the active ingredient to the individual via the delivery mechanism to treat the medical condition of diabetes (Remarks, pages 14-15). As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the treatment is not particular. Adding the word “particular” to the term “treatment” does not make it particular within MPEP § 2106 and the associated caselaw. Additionally, the condition is not even particular as the claim recites “an individual for a condition associated with diabetes…,” which could include any number of related conditions. Examiner notes this applies with respect to the other independent claims as they recite “a method of treating an individual for a condition associated with…” either heart diseases (claim 13), current arthritis condition (claim 17) or current asthma condition (claim 34).
Furthermore, the claimed invention is not physically administering any treatment to a patient. Per the disclosure, the possible treatments are filtered based on certain criteria to present options for a medical provider on a computer to facilitate treatment of a patient (see at least [0055] discussing the results of the filtering being provided to the user so that they may make healthcare decisions about the treatment of an individual). See Figure 4 showing the claimed invention:
PNG
media_image1.png
656
916
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner reasserts that there is no particularity with respect to the treatment, and therefore, the claims do not result in a practical application as described in MPEP § 2106.04(d). Specifically, the instant claims do not include a particular condition or a particular treatment, such as “an effective amount of topical vitamin D” or “an effective amount of (TNF) antibodies” as in Examples 5 and 6.
Additionally, Example 29 is not similar to the claims at hand. There is no particular treatment administered in the instant claims unlike Example 29.
It should be kept in mind that in order to qualify as a "treatment" or "prophylaxis" limitation for purposes of this consideration, the claim limitation in question must affirmatively recite an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. An example of such a limitation is a step of "administering amazonic acid to a patient" or a step of "administering a course of plasmapheresis to a patient." If the limitation does not actually provide a treatment or prophylaxis, e.g., it is merely an intended use of the claimed invention or a field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception under the "treatment or prophylaxis" consideration. For example, a step of "prescribing a topical steroid to a patient with eczema" is not a positive limitation because it does not require that the steroid actually be used by or on the patient, and a recitation that a claimed product is a "pharmaceutical composition" or that a "feed dispenser is operable to dispense a mineral supplement" are not affirmative limitations because they are merely indicating how the claimed invention might be used. MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2).
The claims at issues include non-transitory computer-readable instructions executed by one or more processors to facilitate a plurality of options and a computer-implemented method. The non-transitory computer-readable instructions executed by one or more processors to facilitate a plurality of options and computer described in the specification are recited at an “apply it” level, and do not have any disclosure or capability to administering any medications. Therefore, it would be inconsistent with Applicant’s own disclosure to interpret the claims resulting in any actual administration of any drug or treatment. As discussed in the interview, Examiner reiterates simply removing “computer-implemented” from the method would not be sufficient to overcome the 101 rejection since there is no treatment, particular or otherwise, actually being administered.
Applicant argues that the claims improve a technical field “via performing corresponding multiple filtering operations and initiating a presentation on an electronic interface of a resulting first subset based on the corresponding multiple operations, which is not ‘abstract’ (e.g., not performed in the human mind or between people) and which integrates any purported abstract idea recited in the claim into a practical application (Remarks, page 15).” Examiner maintains these filtering limitations are part of the abstract idea. This is what doctors do when providing care for patients, which is abstract, and as such, Applicant’s argument remain unpersuasive. See In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982). The additional elements recited in the claim do not rise to the level of a practical application as indicated above in the rejection.
112(a) Rejections
The previous section 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
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 Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is (303)297-4782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 MT.
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 on (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.
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686