3Notice 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 .
Response to Amendment
The following is a FINAL Office action in reply to the Amendments and Arguments received on February 24, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 12-14, 16 and 17 have been amended.
Claims 21-23 have been added.
Claims 2, 15 and 19 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-14, 16-18 and 20-23 are currently pending and have been 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, 3-14 and 16-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 14 and 16 are drawn to methods while claim(s) 1, 3-13 and 17-18 and 20-23 is/are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 1, 3-14 and 16-18 and 20-23 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 14 (representative of independent claim(s) 1 and 17) recites the following steps:
receiving from a user equipment associated with a first user identity, a request to determine a matching subgroup of that match, within specified matching criteria, digital twin data associated with the first user identity; and
in response to the request:
accessing a first dataset first data describing first conditions related to the first user identity;
accessing respective second datasets comprising second data describing respective second conditions related to respective second user identities of a group not comprising the first user identity;
determining the matching subgroup, comprising evaluating, based on the specified matching criteria, the first digital twin dataset associated with the first user identity with respect to the respective second digital twin datasets; and
communicating information related to the matching subgroup
establishing an anonymous communication between the first [unit] and at least one of the second [units] of the matching subgroup
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) collection of data related to a user's conditions for matching with data of similar users for anonymous sharing of information (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 14 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 1 and 17 are determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
by a system comprising a processor,
any digital twins
a first digital twin
second digital twins
to the user equipment
A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising
A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor of the system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 3-13, 16, 18 and, 20-23 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
a virtual anonymous communication
digital twin
a first sensor
a second sensor
a chemical delivery device
an external sensor
a sensor
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-14, 16-18 and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (2019/0005195) in view of Singal (2020/0020452) and Kain (20230252017).
Claim 1
Peterson discloses a patient digital twin:
a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor of the system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising (Peterson [0004]):
storing digital twin data representative of a source group of digital twins, comprising storing first digital twin data representative of a first digital twin of a first user and describing first conditions related to the first user, and storing second digital twin data representative of a second digital twin of a second user and describing second conditions related to the second user (Peterson [0045]); See at least “Thus, the digital twin 130 of a child patient 110 may be implemented as a child reference digital twin organized according to certain standard or "typical" child characteristics, with a particular digital twin instance representing the particular child patient 110. In certain examples, multiple digital twin instances can be aggregated into a digital twin aggregate ( e.g., to represent an accumulation or combination of multiple child patients sharing a common reference digital twin, etc.). The digital twin aggregate can be used to identify differences, similarities, trends, etc., between children represented by the child digital twin instances, for example.”
Peterson discloses a digital twin but does not explicitly teach details about a matching a second anonymized profile.
receiving, from a device of the first user, a request to determine, from among the source group See at least “an ability is provided for searching a centralized database of genomic information collected on a number of patients, and performing a matching process by which similar patients may be discovered.” Where similar patient scenarios are the matching criterion.
in response to the request, accessing the See at least “an ability is provided for searching a centralized database of genomic information collected on a number of patients, and performing a matching process by which similar patients may be discovered.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of a patient digital twin or anonymized user, as taught by Peterson, communication about the digital twin or anonymized user, as taught by Singal, to improve existing techniques of modeling of patient information and maintaining patient confidentiality (Singal [0007])
Modified Peterson and Singal disclose digital twin data and anonymous communication between physicians, respectively, but do not explicitly teach the communication between digital twins [anonymized profile/patients].
and establishing an anonymous communication between the first and the second . (Kain [0050][0061]). See “Members could then anonymously send out invitations or e-mails to other members requesting they connect in an internal chat room or join an internal group, for example.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of a patient digital twin or anonymized communication, as taught by Peterson and Singal, the anonymous communication between patients, as taught by Kain, because a reliable platform to seek out other members based on disease condition, communicate with other members, request retrieval of important missing information, and search for discovery links is invaluable (Kain [0050])
Claim 3
Modified Peterson, Singal and Kain disclose the limitations above. Modified Peterson further teaches:
wherein the second digital twin is part of a matching subgroup of digital twins, wherein a third digital twin of a third user describing third conditions related to the third user is part of the matching subgroup, and wherein the operations further comprise, in response to the request, returning information associated with the third digital twin (Peterson [0045]). See at least “The reference digital twin represents a prototypical or "gold standard" model of the patient 110 or of a particular type/category of patient 110, while one or more reference digital twins represent particular patients 110.”
Examiner Note: While the reference does not expressly teach a third digital twin, Examiner notes that this step is a mere Duplication of Parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B: Duplication of Parts
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Modified Peterson discloses an example patient digital twin of a first user, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that a digital twin emulating a second and or third user would not have any unexpected result. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate in emulating a digital twin for a first user, emulating a digital twin for a second or third user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated under MPEP 2144.04.VI.B rationale directed to common practices considered routine expedients that support an obviousness rationale, such as duplication of parts, which improve patient modeling in the system of Peterson to improves existing modeling of patient information (Peterson [0085]).
Claim 4
Modified Peterson, Singal and Kain disclose the limitations above. Modified Peterson further teaches:
wherein the first digital twin data describing the first conditions related to the first user comprises data describing physical conditions (Peterson [0004]). See at least “The example patient digital twin includes a data structure created from a combination of patient electronic medical record data and historical information, the combination extracted from one or more information systems and arranged in the data structure to form a digital representation of the first patient.”
Claim 5
Modified Peterson, Singal and Kain disclose the limitations above. Modified Peterson further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise receiving the data describing the physical conditions from at least one of: a first sensor coupled to the first user, or a second sensor within a defined proximity of the first user (Peterson [0037]). See at least “Sensors connected to the physical object (e.g., the patient 110) can collect data and relay the collected data 120 to the digital twin…”
Claim 6
Modified Peterson, Singal and Kain disclose the limitations above. Modified Peterson further teaches:
wherein the first digital twin data describing the first conditions related to the first user comprises data describing chemical conditions (Peterson [0056]). See also [0072] “As described above, the patient digital twin 130 can be created (block 1102) by leveraging available patient information such as…”The patient digital twin 130 is "the system of record" about the patient 110. The patient digital twin 130 includes clinical, genetic, family history, financial, environmental, and social data associated with the patient 110, for example.”
Claim 7
Modified Peterson, Singal and Kain disclose the limitations above. Modified Peterson further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise receiving the data describing the chemical conditions from a chemical delivery device coupled to the first user (Peterson [0055]). See “Additionally, behavioral information 610-680 can be provided by medical devices,
Claim 8
Modified Peterson, Singal and Kain disclose the limitations above. Modified Peterson further teaches:
wherein the first digital twin data describing the first conditions related to the first user comprises data describing emotional conditions (Peterson [0037][0084]). See at least “The patient digital twin 130 is "the system of record" about the patient 110. The patient digital twin 130 includes clinical, genetic, family history, financial, environmental, and social data associated with the patient 110, for example.” Where the emotional condition is “other malady”
Claim 9
Modified Peterson, Singal and Kain disclose the limitations above. Modified Peterson further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise receiving the data describing the emotional conditions from at least one of: a first sensor coupled to the first user, or a second sensor within a defined proximity of the first user (Peterson [0037]). See at least “Sensors connected to the physical object (e.g., the
patient 110) can collect data and relay the collected data 120 to the digital twin 130…An accurate digital description 130 of the patient 110 benefiting from a real-time or substantially real-time (e.g., accounting from data transmission, processing, and/or storage delay) allows the system 100 to predict "failures" in the form of disease, body function, and/or other malady, condition, etc.”
Claim 10
Modified Peterson, Singal and Kain disclose the limitations above. Modified Peterson further teaches:
wherein the first digital twin data describing the first conditions related to the first user comprises data describing environmental conditions, and wherein the operations further comprise receiving the data describing the environmental conditions from at least one of: an external sensor external to the first user and within a defined proximity of a location of the first user, or a sensor coupled to the first user (Peterson [0056]). See at least “In certain examples, community resources, medical devices, monitoring devices, biometric sensors, locational sensors, communication systems, collaboration systems, etc., can be used to measure and/or otherwise capture social/environmental information 330….”
Claim 11
Modified Peterson, Singal and Kain disclose the limitations above. Modified Peterson further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise receiving diagnosis data related to the first user, and, in response, storing the diagnosis data in association with the first digital twin data of the first user (Peterson [0004]). See “The example patient digital twin is to receive feedback regarding the first patient following a procedure conducted on the first patient. The example patient digital twin is to incorporate the feedback into the patient digital twin when elements for the procedure have been completed.”
Claim 12
Modified Peterson, Singal and Kain disclose the limitations above. Modified Peterson further teaches:
wherein the second digital twin data corresponds to a proxy emulating the second user (Peterson [0004]). See “The example patient digital twin is to receive feedback regarding the first patient following a procedure conducted on the first patient. The example patient digital twin is to incorporate the feedback into the patient digital twin when elements for the procedure have been completed.”
Examiner Note: While the reference does not expressly teach a second digital twin, Examiner notes that this step is a mere Duplication of Parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B: Duplication of Parts
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Modified Peterson discloses an example patient digital twin of a first users, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that a digital twin emulating a second user would not have any unexpected result. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate in emulating a digital twin for a first user, emulating a digital twin for a second user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated under MPEP 2144.04.VI.B rationale directed to common practices considered routine expedients that support an obviousness rationale, such as duplication of parts, which improve patient modeling in the system of Peterson to improves existing modeling of patient information (Peterson [0085]).
Claim 13
Modified Peterson, Singal and Kain disclose the limitations above. Modified Peterson further teaches:
wherein the third digital twin is synthesized from third digital twin data of multiple digital twins of the source group of the digital twins. (Peterson [0004]). See “The example patient digital twin is to receive feedback regarding the first patient following a procedure conducted on the first patient. The example patient digital twin is to incorporate the feedback into the patient digital twin when elements for the procedure have been completed.”
Examiner Note: While the reference does not expressly teach a third digital twin, Examiner notes that this step is a mere Duplication of Parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B: Duplication of Parts
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Modified Peterson discloses an example patient digital twin of a first users, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that a digital twin emulating a third user would not have any unexpected result. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate in emulating a digital twin for a first user, emulating a digital twin for a third user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated under MPEP 2144.04.VI.B rationale directed to common practices considered routine expedients that support an obviousness rationale, such as duplication of parts, which improve patient modeling in the system of Peterson to improves existing modeling of patient information (Peterson [0085]).
Claim 14
Peterson discloses a patient digital twin.
in response to the request: accessing a first digital twin dataset associated with a first digital twin and comprising first data describing first conditions related to the first user identity (Peterson [0045]); See at least “Thus, the digital twin 130 of a child patient 110 may be implemented as a child reference digital twin organized according to certain standard or "typical" child characteristics, with a particular digital twin instance representing the particular child patient 110. In certain examples, multiple digital twin instances can be aggregated into a digital twin aggregate ( e.g., to represent an accumulation or combination of multiple child patients sharing a common reference digital twin, etc.). The digital twin aggregate can be used to identify differences, similarities, trends, etc., between children represented by the child digital twin instances, for example.”
accessing respective second digital twin datasets associated with second digital twins and comprising second data describing respective second conditions related to respective second user identities of a group not comprising the first user identity; determining the matching subgroup, comprising evaluating, based on the specified matching criteria, the first digital twin dataset associated with the first user identity with respect to the respective second digital twin datasets; (Peterson [0045]). See at least “The reference digital twin represents a prototypical or "gold standard" model of the patient 110 or of a particular type/category of patient 110, while one or more reference digital twins represent particular patients 110…In certain examples, multiple digital twin instances can be aggregated into a digital twin aggregate ( e.g., to represent an accumulation or combination of multiple child patients sharing a common reference digital twin, etc.). The digital twin aggregate can be used to identify differences, similarities, trends, etc., between children represented by the child digital twin instances, for example.”
Peterson discloses a digital twin but does not explicitly teach details about a matching a second anonymized profile.
receiving, by a system comprising a processor, from a user equipment associated with a first user identity, a request to determine a matching subgroup of any See at least “an ability is provided for searching a centralized database of genomic information collected on a number of patients, and performing a matching process by which similar patients may be discovered.” Where similar patient scenarios are the matching criterion.
Examiner Note: While the reference does not expressly teach a second digital twin, Examiner notes that this step is a mere Duplication of Parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B: Duplication of Parts
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Modified Peterson discloses an example patient digital twin of a first users, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that a digital twin emulating a second user would not have any unexpected result. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate in emulating a digital twin for a first user, emulating a digital twin for a second user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated under MPEP 2144.04.VI.B rationale directed to common practices considered routine expedients that support an obviousness rationale, such as duplication of parts, which improve patient modeling in the system of Peterson to improves existing modeling of patient information (Peterson [0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of a patient digital twin or anonymized user, as taught by Peterson, a second anonymized user profile, to improve existing techniques of modeling of patient information.
Modified Peterson and Singal disclose digital twin data and anonymous communication between physicians, respectively, but do not explicitly teach the communication between digital twins [anonymized profile/patients].
establishing an anonymous communication between the first digital twin [anonymized profile] and at least one of the second digital twin [anonymized profiles] of the matching subgroup (Kain [0050][0061]). See “Members could then anonymously send out invitations or e-mails to other members requesting they connect in an internal chat room or join an internal group, for example.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of a patient digital twin or anonymized communication, as taught by Peterson and Singal, the anonymous communication between patients, as taught by Kain, because a reliable platform to seek out other members based on disease condition, communicate with other members, request retrieval of important missing information, and search for discovery links is invaluable (Kain [0050])
Claim 16
Modified Peterson, Singal and Kain disclose the limitations above. Modified Peterson further teaches:
wherein the determining of the matching subgroup comprises evaluating at least one of: first physical data, first chemical data, first emotional data or first environmental data of the first digital twin dataset with corresponding second physical data, second chemical data, second emotional data or second environmental data of the second digital twin datasets (Peterson [0045]). See at least “The reference digital twin represents a prototypical or "gold standard" model of the patient 110 or of a particular type/category of patient 110, while one or more reference digital twins represent particular patients 110…In certain examples, multiple digital twin instances can be aggregated into a digital twin aggregate ( e.g., to represent an accumulation or combination of multiple child patients sharing a common reference digital twin, etc.). The digital twin aggregate can be used to identify differences, similarities, trends, etc., between children represented by the child digital twin instances, for example.”
Claim 17
Peterson discloses a patient digital twin:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising (Peterson [0033]):
collecting respective digital twin datasets from respective users of a group (Peterson [0045]). See at least “The reference digital twin represents a prototypical or "gold standard" model of the patient 110 or of a particular type/category of patient 110, while one or more reference digital twins represent particular patients 110…In certain examples, multiple digital twin instances can be aggregated into a digital twin aggregate ( e.g., to represent an accumulation or combination of multiple child patients sharing a common reference digital twin, etc.). The digital twin aggregate can be used to identify differences, similarities, trends, etc., between children represented by the child digital twin instances, for example.”
Peterson discloses a digital twin but does not explicitly teach details about a matching a second anonymized profile.
matching, based on specified matching criteria, a first associated with a first digital twin of a first user of the group with respect to the respective associated with a second digital twin of a second user of the group that satisfies the specified matching criteria; outputting data of the second See at least “an ability is provided for searching a centralized database of genomic information collected on a number of patients, and performing a matching process by which similar patients may be discovered.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of a patient digital twin or anonymized user, as taught by Peterson, a second anonymized user profile, to improve existing techniques of modeling of patient information.
Modified Peterson and Singal disclose digital twin data and anonymous communication between physicians, respectively, but do not explicitly teach the communication between digital twins [anonymized profile/patients].
establishing an anonymous communication between the first digital twin and the second digital twin (Kain [0050][0061]). See “Members could then anonymously send out invitations or e-mails to other members requesting they connect in an internal chat room or join an internal group, for example.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of a patient digital twin or anonymized communication, as taught by Peterson and Singal, the anonymous communication between patients, as taught by Kain, because a reliable platform to seek out other members based on disease condition, communicate with other members, request retrieval of important missing information, and search for discovery links is invaluable (Kain [0050])
Claim 18
Modified Peterson and Singal disclose the limitations above. Modified Peterson further teaches:
wherein the collecting of the respective digital twin datasets from the respective users of the group comprises collecting respective time data for the respective digital twin datasets (Peterson [0087]). See at least “At certain times (e.g., pre- and post-operation, pre-exam, etc.), medical knowledge can be applied to the patient digital twin 130, which has different behavior characteristics in different circumstances based on the patient's 110 condition, setting, etc.”
Claim 20
Modified Peterson and Singal disclose the limitations above. Modified Peterson further teaches:
wherein the matching comprises comparing at least one of: first physical data of the first digital twin dataset with second physical data of the second digital twin dataset, first chemical data of the first digital twin dataset with second chemical data of the second digital twin dataset, first emotional data of the first digital twin dataset with second emotional data of the second digital twin dataset, or first environmental data of the first digital twin dataset with second environmental data of the second digital twin dataset (Peterson [0036][0045]). See [0045] “The reference digital twin represents a prototypical or "gold standard" model of the patient 110 or of a particular type/category of patient 110, while one or more reference digital twins represent particular patients 110.”
Claim 21
Modified Peterson and Singal disclose the limitations above. Modified Peterson further teaches:
wherein the first digital twin dataset describes first conditions related to the first user (Peterson [0039]). See “Thus, rather than a generic model, the digital twin 130 is a collection of actual physics-based, anatomically based, and/or biologically-based models reflecting the patient 110 and his or her associated norms, conditions, etc.”
Claim 22
Modified Peterson and Singal disclose the limitations above. Modified Peterson further teaches:
wherein the first digital twin dataset describing the first conditions related to the first user comprises data describing physical conditions (Peterson [0039]). See “Thus, rather than a generic model, the digital twin 130 is a collection of actual physics-based, anatomically based, and/or biologically-based models reflecting the patient 110 and his or her associated norms, conditions, etc.”
Claim 23
Modified Peterson and Singal disclose the limitations above. Modified Peterson further teaches:
wherein the first digital twin dataset describing the first conditions related to the first user comprises data describing chemical conditions (Peterson [0039]). See “The patient digital twin 130 can be used in conjunction with a data capture engine with digital devices (e.g., edge devices for a cloud network, etc.), Web applications, social media, etc. Knowledge sources such as medical, chemical, genetic, etc., can be leveraged with and/or incorporated into the digital twin 130, for example.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: It is respectfully maintained that a processor that (1) establishes an anonymous communication between a first digital twin and a second digital twin (e.g., as in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited by independent claims 14 and 17) describes a hardware computing system performing operations that simply cannot practically be performed in the human mind (or at all by a human). For instance, a human mind cannot establish an anonymous communication between a first digital twin and a second digital twin.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Applicant Argues: Moreover, even assuming, for the sake of argument only, that the claims may recite certain aspects characterized by the Examiner as "mental processes", the claims still recite a practical application and further recite significantly more than the broadly alleged abstract idea of a mental process as conceptualized by the Examiner.
Applicant’s alleged improvement is not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. A showing that a claim is directed to any improvement does not automatically mean a claim is patent eligible (e.g., an improved business function or an improved idea itself is not patent eligible). In this case, the recitation of a digital twin is broadly claimed and merely provides an anonymized profile for a patient. Matching patient profiles while protecting personal user data is an abstract idea, and an “improved” way of matching profiles using a broadly claimed digital twin is, if anything, an improvement to the idea itself.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: It is respectfully submitted that the alleged combination of Peterson and Singal fails to describe or suggest establishing an anonymous communication between a first digital twin and a second digital twin, as now recited in the present independent claims 1, 19, and 20.
Peterson teaches an patient digital twin of a first patient. Singal teaches anonymous communication between physicians about an anonymous patient however Examiner agrees neither explicitly teaches anonymous communication between patients and has cited Kain (20230252017) for the teaching.
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 RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm. 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626