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 RCE filed 04/10/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and considered herein.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/10/2026 has been entered.
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 1-20 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; each of the corresponding set of digital healthcare profiles including a corresponding healthcare decision tree; determining a subset of users at a similar health stage as the first user at a predetermined period prior to the current determination; determining, for a first user of the set of users, a set of possible actions related to improving health of the first user; determining, for each of the set of possible actions, an impact of the recommendation; determining, from the set of possible recommendations, a first action based on an impact of the first action; providing, to the first user, information related to the first action from the set of possible actions; and determining a subset of healthcare decision trees that engaged at the redetermined period prior to the current determination.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations and further include a “physical processor” (Claim 8) and “A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by a physical processor of a computing device” (Claim 15). 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 healthcare profiles; each of the corresponding set of healthcare profiles including a corresponding healthcare decision tree; determining a subset of users at a similar health stage as the first user at a predetermined period prior to the current determination; determining, for a first user of the set of users, a set of possible actions related to improving health of the first user; determining, for each of the set of possible actions, an impact of the recommendation; determining, from the set of possible recommendations, a first action based on an impact of the first action; providing, to the first user, information related to the first action from the set of possible actions; and determining a subset of healthcare decision trees that engaged at the redetermined period prior to the current determination,” 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 8 and “non-transitory machine-readable storage medium,” “physical processor” and digital profiles of claim 15, 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). The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer system and processor and non-transitory data storage medium does not remove the claims from the method of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
In addition, other than reciting generic computer system, processor and storage medium, and digital healthcare 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 and digital profiles, generating diagnostic results including recommendations based on patient(s) data, in the context of this claim, encompasses one skilled in the pertinent art to manually determine the details of the patient data for comparison and prognosis/diagnosis/recommendations for a patient. 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 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 digital healthcare profiles amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer component and mathematical concepts. 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, 9 and 16 describes determining a money amount of the impact an action and further limits the abstract idea, without significantly more. Claims 3, 10 and 17 further analyze information about sets of users and determines possible actions and dollar amounts and further defines the abstract idea, without significantly more. Claims 4, 11 and 18 describe a how a set of actions is determined and decision tree correlations and further defines the abstract idea, without significantly more. Claims 5, 12 and 19 describe a social relationship and determining associations between a first set of digital healthcare profiles and a second set of digital healthcare profiles and even in combination, the recitation of a social relationship and first and second sets of digital healthcare profiles does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 6 describes a knowledge graph and applying a weight to digital healthcare profiles, and even in combination, the knowledge graph and digital healthcare weightings do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 7, 14 and 20 describes analyzing information about a user executing an action updating decision trees to provide a second action and further defines the abstract idea, without significantly more. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 04/10/2026 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 11-15 of Applicant’s Remarks are not persuasive. At pages 11-14 the Examiner respectfully disagrees that there is not an abstract idea and there is a technological improvement in the claims. The alleged improvement to computer technology is based on a conclusory statement and is not claimed by any limitation or highlighted in the specification. The broadly recited claims are directed to the abstract idea of methods of organizing human activity as well as mental processes, discussed in the rejection above. The abstract idea is encompassed in the limitations “managing, for a set of users, a corresponding set of healthcare profiles; each of the corresponding set of healthcare profiles including a corresponding healthcare decision tree; determining a subset of users at a similar health stage as the first user at a predetermined period prior to the current determination; determining, for a first user of the set of users, a set of possible actions related to improving health of the first user; determining, for each of the set of possible actions, an impact of the recommendation; determining, from the set of possible recommendations, a first action based on an impact of the first action; providing, to the first user, information related to the first action from the set of possible actions; and determining a subset of healthcare decision trees that engaged at the redetermined period prior to the current determination,” as claimed.
At pages 12-13 the Examiner disagrees there is significantly more than the abstract idea or there is a practical application that is integrated in the claims. Here the digital healthcare profiles of various data and analysis/recommendation techniques using machine-readable instructions act as a computer tool used to employ the abstract idea. That it may be tedious or laborious to perform analyses in the mind or manually with the data is not of consequence in the eligibility analysis. The Examiner disagrees at Page 14 that any evidence of additional elements being well-understood, routine and conventional is required, because this is not set forth in the previous Office Action. The computer components and “digital” profile are general computer components and mere instructions to apply a judicial exception.
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with arguments at Pages 14-15 that the claims do not preempt an abstract idea. The claims generally amount to collecting patient data for multiple patients, including a “decision tree” for healthcare, and determining recommendations based on analyzing the data and decision tree, and is 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. The digital nature of the healthcare profile (folder of patient data) and generic computer devices do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea and there is no technological improvement thereof. Instead, they are mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and cannot provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons and those stated above, the claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
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