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 Nonfinal Office Action is in response to the Remarks filed 08/11/2025.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and considered herein.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites, wherein the abstract idea is not emboldened:
A method for dynamically evaluating health care risk, the method being implemented by machine-readable instructions, the method comprising: managing, for a set of users, a corresponding set of digital healthcare profiles, where each digital healthcare profile includes a healthcare decision tree for the corresponding user; determining, for a first user of the set of users, a first subset of the set of users with a first set of similar digital healthcare profiles based on the corresponding set of healthcare decision trees; determining, for the first user, a second subset of the set of users that are associated with the first user based on a social relationship between the first user and each user in the second subset of users; determining, based on the first set of digital healthcare profiles of the first subset of users and the second set of digital healthcare profiles of the second subset of users, a first recommended action for the first user; and providing, to the first user, information related to the first recommended action.
Independent claims 9 and 16 recite substantially similar limitations and further include a “physical processor” (Claim 9) and “A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by a physical processor of a computing device” (Claim 16). The claimed invention is broadly directed to the abstract idea of collecting patient(s) information, analyzing the information, and determining a recommendation based on the analyses.
The limitations of “managing, for a set of users, a corresponding set of digital healthcare profiles, where each digital healthcare profile includes a healthcare decision tree for the corresponding user; determining, for a first user of the set of users, a first subset of the set of users with a first set of similar healthcare profiles based on the corresponding set of healthcare decision trees; determining, for the first user, a second subset of the set of users that are associated with the first user based on a social relationship between the first user and each user in the second subset of users; determining, based on the first set of healthcare profiles of the first subset of users and the second set of healthcare profiles of the second subset of users, a first recommended action for the first user; and providing, to the first user, information related to the first recommended action,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea that covers performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, but for the generic computer system language in the preamble of claim 1 and digital profiles of claim 1, “physical processor” and digital profiles of claim 9 and “non-transitory machine-readable storage medium,” “physical processor” and digital profiles of claim 16, analyzing patient data including comparing the patient data to other patients and those data, in the context of this claim, is an abstract idea that covers performance of the limitation as organizing human activity including following rules or instructions. These recited limitations fall within certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations allowing users to access patient data, analyze the data, and determine actions or recommendations based on the analyses. This is a method of managing interactions between people. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations are categorized as methods of organizing human activity, specifically associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including a patient and physician (e.g. patient/user data compared to other patient/user data, analyzing the comparisons/healthcare profiles, and determining a course of action for the patient/user). Therefore, the limitation falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)-(g). The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer system and processor and non-transitory data storage medium and digital profiles does not remove the claims from the method of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claims can also be classified as an abstract idea including mental processes. That is, other than reciting generic computer system, processor and storage medium, and digital profiles nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computing devices and language, generating diagnostic results based on patient data and decision trees from related or unrelated patients, in the context of this claim, encompasses one skilled in the pertinent art to manually determine the details of the data for comparison and prognosis for a patient or group of patients. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of being implemented by machine-readable instructions on a computer system, including processors and storage medium for dynamically evaluating health care risk and analyzing digital healthcare profiles. The devices and the digital healthcare profile in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/server/storage/display performing a generic computer function of receiving inputs, analyzing the inputs, and displaying selected information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The limitations appear to monopolize the abstract idea of patient analysis comparing one group of patients to another group or individual patient and decisions and are general diagnostic techniques between a clinician and her patient. Furthermore, there is no clear improvement to the underlying computer technology in the claim. The claim is thus directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of being implemented by machine-readable instructions on a computer system, including processors and storage medium and use of digital healthcare profiles amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims with respect to patent eligible subject matter. The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101. Claims 2, 10 and 17 describe how to update a user digital healthcare profile and the digital healthcare profile is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component and cannot provide an inventive concept. Even in combination, the digital healthcare profile does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 3, 11 and 18 describe a relationship between users and recommended actions and further defines the abstract idea. Claims 4 and 12 describe a knowledge graph and user information determinations, which is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component and cannot provide an inventive concept. Even in combination, knowledge graph does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 5, 13 and 19 describe applying a weight to each digital healthcare profile and even in combination, the digital healthcare profile and weight does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 6, 14 and 20 further analyze information for subsets for users and further defines the abstract idea. Claim 7 updates information and makes a recommendation and further limits the abstract idea. Claims 8 and 15 prioritize an action based on analyzing information from decision trees and further defines the abstract idea. Claim 21 details determining digital healthcare profiles using machine learning and is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component and cannot provide an inventive concept. Even in combination, determining digital profiles by use of machine learning does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For at least the reasons sated above, the claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed April 17, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The following explains why:
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to subject matter eligibility are not persuasive. The basis for the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is still operative and the claims have been addressed with regard to the updated 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection discussed above, and considered under the relevant sections of the MPEP. The arguments at pages 10-15 of Applicant’s Remarks are not persuasive. At pages 10-13 the Examiner respectfully disagrees that there is not an abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of methods of organizing human activity (judicial exception) as well as mental processes, discussed above. That it may be tedious or laborious to perform analyses in the mind or manually is not of consequence in the eligibility analysis. It is possible to manually determine the claimed limitations to analyze the patient data and compare between groups and decisions, and the limitations include the abstract idea of mental processes. The limitations are also methods of organizing human activity for following rules or instructions for providing healthcare recommendations between a patient and physician and/or healthcare group. Moreover, there is no practical application and there is no technological improvement recited in the claims. It is not apparent in the claims or the Specification that the comparison of decision trees and updating user lists/digital profiles is improving any underling computer technology. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The Examiner disagrees at Pages 13-15 that the claims recite an exception that is integrated into a practical application in the claims, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees at Page 14, that the decision trees are like fundamental mathematical equations like the Arrhenius equation as argued in Diehr. The decision trees do not upgrade a use of the computer or make any “transformation,” and are not the same as the thermocouple and recording of temperatures as argued by Applicant.
The Examiner disagrees with arguments at Pages 14-15, nothing is alleged to be well-understood, routine or conventional as in Berkheimer, although there is nothing unique about the claimed computer itself or digital profiles. Rather, generic computer components are being leveraged as a tool to employ the judicial exception, and do not provide an inventive concept. The nominal recitation of the additional elements of a generic computer system and digital healthcare profiles is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The computer and digital profiles are recited at a high level, and amount to applying the exception using a generic computer component (See e.g. Updated PEG Example 47, claim 2, where the “detecting” and “analyzing” were mental processes, and “using the trained ANN” (similar to software executing on a computer for analyzing and comparing healthcare decision trees and detecting variations and same as the machine learning of claim 21) amounted to generic computer implementation). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with arguments at Page 15 that the claims do not preempt an abstract idea. The claims amount to collecting patient data for multiple patients and determining recommendations based on analyzing the data, a process that can be done manually and that is also a method of organizing human activity of following rules or instructions between a patient and physician/healthcare group. It appears the claims try to monopolize the abstract idea of patient analysis comparing one group of patients and decisions to another group or individual patient and general diagnostic techniques between a clinician and her patient. The claims do not include additional elements to overcome the abstract idea and show a practical application thereof in the claims or technological improvement to the underlying computer devices.
For at least these reasons and those stated above, the claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. 2018/0144820 A1 to Grimmer for health decision trees for users. U.S. 2017/0006135 A1 to Siebel et al. U.S. 2021/0158909 A1 to Ng et al. for decision points and comparison for patients.
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 WILLIAM T. MONTICELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-4871. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th; 08:30-18:30 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, FONYA LONG can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/WILLIAM T. MONTICELLO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/FONYA M LONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights