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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 6/26/2026 in which claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 13, 15-18, 22-23, 25-28, and 31 have been canceled, claims 2, 19, 30, and 32-37 have been amended. Thus, the claims 2, 6, 9-12, 14, 19-21, 24, 29-30, and 32-37 are pending in the application.
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 2, 6, 9-12, 14, 19-21, 24, 29-30, and 32-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of selecting a wound product for a patient without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 36 as the representative claim that represents the invention described in independent claims 30, 34, and 36.
Claim 36 is directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 36 describes a computer system comprising: a server arranged in communication with a database, and a client device arranged in networked communication with the server, wherein the computer system is adapted to: receive, at the server, a present first collection of data indicative of the wound of the patient, wherein the present first collection of data comprises at least one of a first image and a first video sequence of an area of the patient that includes the wound; apply, at the server, an image processing algorithm to the at least one of the first image and the first video sequence to extract one or more features of the wound, the one or more features comprising information relating to at least one of a wound size, a tissue composition, an exudate amount, and a position of the wound, wherein applying the image processing algorithm includes normalizing the at least one of the first image and the first video sequence using a previously determined first parameter for the same wound of the patient to obtain comparable image data to determine a progress of the wound; execute a trained machine-learning model to determine a present healing trajectory of the wound of the patient based on the present first collection of data indicative of the wound of the patient, the progress of the wound, and the one or more features of the wound, wherein the trained machine-learning model is at least partially based on data relating to wounds of patients other than the patient, acquire, from the database using the server, a previously determined healing trajectory for the same wound of the patient, wherein the previously determined healing trajectory is based on an earlier received collection of data indicative of the wound of the patient, the earlier received collection of data corresponding to an earlier point of time in the healing process than the represent first collection of data; determine, using the control unit, a trajectory difference between the present healing trajectory for the wound and a previously determined healing trajectory for the same wound of the patient; determining, at the server, a trajectory difference between the present healing trajectory for the wound and the previously determined healing trajectory for the wound of the patient; determining, at the server, a desired functional wound product property based on: (i) the present first collection of data indicative of the wound of the patient, (ii) the one or more features of the wound, (iii) the present healing trajectory for the wound, and (iv) the trajectory difference; match, at the server, the desired functional wound product property to the plurality of different types of wound products to select the particular wound product for the patient; and receive, at the server, feedback data subsequent to application of the particular wound product to the patient’s wound, wherein the feedback data is used to adjust a future selection of the particular wound product to enhance alignment with a desired healing trajectory. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) describe the abstract idea of selecting a wound product for a patient which corresponds to a certain method of organizing human activity and hence are abstract in nature. The additional elements of a server, a database, a client device, the computer system, an image processing algorithm, machine-learning model, and a control unit do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 36 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a server, a database, a client device, the computer system, an image processing algorithm, machine-learning model, and a control unit result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a server, a database, a client device, the computer system, an image processing algorithm, machine-learning model, and a control unit are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprise a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 36 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 36 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a server, a database, a client device, the computer system, an image processing algorithm, machine-learning model, and a control unit result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a server, a database, a client device, the computer system, an image processing algorithm, machine-learning model, and a control unit are all recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 36 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to other independent claims 30 and 34 and hence the claims 30 and 34 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 36.
Dependent claims 2, 6, 9-12, 14, 19-21, 24, 29, 32-33, 35, and 37 further define the abstract idea that is present in the independent claims 1 and 30, thus correspond to a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract in nature. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2, 6, 9-12, 14, 19-21, 24, 29, 32-33, 35, and 37 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 2, 6, 9-12, 14, 19-21, 24, 29-30, and 32-37 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed dated 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 2, 6, 9-12, 4, 19-21, 24, 29, 30, and 32-37 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that the new claims certainly go beyond these enumerated sub-groupings by defining subject matter that is not a commercial or legal interaction, nor a fundamental economic principle or practice, nor related to managing personal behavior or relationships. Additionally, the claims recite specific elements that provide new capabilities to wound treatment and, thus, the claimed methods extend the functionality of computer-based medical care beyond any “commercial or legal interaction,” “fundamental economic principle or practice,” or “managing personal behavior or relationships” sub-grouping.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims are initially considered in the absence of additional elements to determine if the claim recites an abstract idea. In this case, it was determined that the new claims recite an abstract idea of selecting a wound product for a patient wound. Selecting a wound product for a patient corresponds to a certain method of organizing human activity and hence is abstract in nature. The additional elements are then considered to determine if the additional elements restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. In this case, it was determined that the additional elements do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Applicant states that the claims provide for a computer implemented method for selecting a wound product for a patient wound. More specifically, the claims describe the performance of image processing on an image and/or video sequence of the patient wound to extract features therefrom, which are used to match one or more wound products to effectuate treatment thereof. The method also contemplates receiving feedback data to adapt the method for future selection of wound products. Accordingly, even if the claims were still determined to be drawn to any abstract concept, the new claims sufficiently integrate any such abstract concept to a practical application by reciting extensive details about the treatment of a patient wound. In other words, the claims recite extensive and meaningful limits on any alleged abstract concept described.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it simply amounts to applying the abstract idea without transforming the abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter. These additional elements do not result in any technical improvement or provide a technical solution to a technical problem. If there is an improvement, it is to an abstract idea of selecting a wound product for a patient which is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding combination of elements in the claims similarity operate in a “non-conventional and non-generic way.” Further, the claimed combination of additional elements presents “a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea,” similar to what was determined in Examples 35 and 36 and Bascom.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it merely result in applying the abstract idea without amounting to add significantly more. As explained above, the additional elements merely applies the abstract idea without providing any technical improvement and thus the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The proper analysis as per the guidance is not if the claims recite a practical application of the abstract idea but instead if the additional elements provide a technical improvement or provide a technical solution to a technical problem. In this case, the specification does not describe any technical problem to which the claimed invention provides a technical solution. Moreover, there is no similarity between the combination of elements presented in the claimed invention to what is present in Examples 35 and 36 and Bascom so that the arguments that the elements operate in a non-conventional and non-generic way are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding the recent decision Ex parte Desjardins (Appeal 2024-000567), Examiner notes that unlike Ex parte Desjardins, the specification of the claimed invention does not identify any technical improvements as it relates to machine learning model. The claim recites a trained machine-learning model to determine a present healing trajectory based on the present first collection of data, the progress of the wound and the one or more features of the wound, and the model is at least partially based on data relating to wounds of patients other than the patent. The claim then determine a desired functional wound product property based on the present first collection of data indicative of the wound of the patient, the one or more features of the wound, the present healing trajectory for the wound and the trajectory difference. However, these are recited at a high level and there is no specific teaching that relates to technical improvement of the model or address a technical problem with the use of a model in providing a technical solution. In the absence of technical improvement, there is no practical application of the abstract idea and thus these arguments are not persuasive.
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 RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights