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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reference to the communication filed on 2 OCT 2025.
Amendments to claim 1, as well as the cancellation of claim 2, are entered and considered.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10 pending and 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.
Step One: Is the Claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9, 10 the independent claim(s) 1 recite(s)a method, i.e. a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9, 10 the independent claim(s) (claims 1) is/are directed, in part, to
“…sending a prediction result request for health time-series data to a first external medical support system and a second external medical support system;
receiving a first external prediction result associated with the health time-series data from the first external medical support system;
receiving a second external prediction result associated with the health time-series data 10 from the second external medical support system;
generating long-term time-series data and short-term time-series data for each of the health time-series data, the first external prediction result, and the second external prediction result;
extracting a first long-term trend and a second long-term trend based on the long-term time-series data;
extracting a first short-term trend and a second short-term trend based on the short-term time-series data:
calculating external prediction goodness-of-fit based on the first and second long-term trends and the first and second short-term trends; and
generating an ensemble prediction result based on the external prediction goodness-of- fit and the first and second external prediction results;
wherein extracting a first long-term trend and a second long-term trend based on the long-term time-series data includes;
grouping the long-term time-series data at a window time interval to generate a long- term feature window including a plurality of long-term window groups; and
analyzing each of the plurality of long-term window groups,
wherein extracting a first short-term trend and a second short-term trend based on the short-term time-series data includes:
grouping the short-term time-series data at the window time interval to generate a short- term feature window including a plurality of short-term window groups; and
analyzing each of the plurality of short-term window groups, and
wherein the plurality of short-term window groups include a target time;
calculating an error based on the calculated external prediction goodness-of-fit and a real external goodness-of-fit; and
adjusting a parameter group of the ensemble predication model based on the error;
wherein the ensemble prediction model includes data built through at last one of a neural network, deep learning or machine learning, and trained in a back propagation manner, and
the adjusting the parameter group of the ensemble prediction model includes adjusting the parameter group for an operation of each component of the ensemble prediction model in the back propagation manner; and
wherein generating the ensemble prediction result includes providing a user with improved information in support of a clinical decision relating to the user’s health.
These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to mathematical concepts – which include mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, or calculations. Limitations including the generating long/short term data, extracting trends, calculating external prediction goodness of fit/ error, adjusting parameter group, and generating an ensemble prediction all appear to be versions of mathematical concepts as identified above. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationship, formulas, equations, or calculations, then it falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These claim elements are further considered to be abstract ideas because they recite mental processes, including concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Limitations including the prediction request, receiving a first and second prediction result, generating long term/short term time series data for each, extracting a first and second long term trend, extracting a first and second short term trend, calculating external prediction goodness of fit, calculating an error, adjusting a parameter, and generating an ensemble prediction result are all examples of mental processes as identified above. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Solely in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that the claims recite sending and receiving data in several limitations – Examiner notes this is almost by definition insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05g).
Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes the independent claim(s) is/are additionally directed to claim elements such as “sending and receiving data” in several limitations. Examiner notes this is categorically insignificant extra salutation activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05g). Examiner further notes there is no improvement to the data transmission itself (i.e. technology or technical field) (see MPEP 2106.05a).
When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05f). The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
As per dependent claims 3-7, 9, 10:
Dependent claims 3-7, 9, 10 are not directed any additional abstract ideas and are also not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as additional mathematical calculations and/or mental processes. These claims further refine the goodness of fit, the first and second short and long term trends, and an additional moving trend, While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10 are believed to be free of the prior art.
Claims 9, 10 were previously indicated as such in the Non-Final Rejection as mailed on 30 JAN 2025.
With regard to claim 1, Applicant’s amendments and remarks as filed on 16 APRIL 2025 have been found persuasive and the rejection is withdrawn. The closest prior art is believed to be:
Han et al (US 20170357760 A1)
Jonckheere et al (US 20090326401 A1)
Brunner et al (US 20170249434 A1)
Neville (US 20150112705 A1)
Han as cited teaches a prediction request for time series data, and receiving a time series result for the actual prediction as requested. A second prediction is received by the system, and used to generate both short and long term time series predictions for each set as received, and a first and second short and long term trend is extracted from the time series data for each grouping, and subsequently used to generate a calculated prediction based on the first and second results.
Jonckheere teaches calculating a goodness of fit based on the extracted trend data for several sets of data, and generating a combined prediction using the several goodness of fit and the trend data, each, as extracted from several sets of data. Further, the reference discloses applicability of machine learning to determining specific time intervals for event extraction, and using the extracted events to determine a first and second long term trend analysis.
Brunner discloses using a similar process of modeling and extraction to determine the “leading indicator” or the trajectory modeling, i.e. a trend determination of a given disease using specific time windows as compared to one another, and wherein a time window may include or exclude another time window also being considered.
Neville discloses using a goodness of fit calculation to determine a trend analysis, and using several best/ranked “goodness of fit” measurements to be compared prior to using the “best” goodness of fit of several data sets to determine a trend over several given periods. Neville specifically discloses variability in the goodness of fit as a reason why several measurements may be compared in a ratio to determine the ultimate fitted trend for a series of data.
However, when taken separately or in combination the references fail to disclose the amended limitations to claim 1. In particular Examiner finds the specific ordering of the time windows and subsequent calculations as considered in the claim to be not fairly taught by the prior art. Examiner finds Applicant’s remarks and citations to the specification on pages 12-13 of the remarks to be particularly persuasive, particularly with consideration to the long term variability as discussed in figure 11 and related text.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks as filed on 2 OCT 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the interview on 17 SEPT 2025 are noted on page 9.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection under 35 USC §101 begin on page 9/10, with an assertion that an improvement to a technology or a technical field is present. At the outset, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims themselves, and the portions of the specification included in support of this position are in the background rather than the description of the invention itself.
Applicant replicates portions of the rejection on page 10, and concludes that mere presence of calculations should not disqualify a claim, if a practical application is present. Examiner reiterates that the analysis is a multi-prong/step approach, with a finding of an abstract idea at step 2A Prong 1 being a requirement in order to consider 2A prong 2 – a practical application.
Further on page 10 Applicant discusses the treatment/prophylaxis consideration, and on page 11 concludes that a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition is present in the amendments. Examiner respectfully disagrees, at the very least as there is no “disease or medical condition” in the claim itself. Instead the claims appear to recite an “improvement” in the non-technical realm of diagnosis/predictions. Applicant’s remarks on page 11 appear to support Examiner’s position in that they also make it clear no particular treatment or disease is identified. Further, Examiner notes that the elements identified by Applicant on page 11 are considered in the abstract idea analysis/identification, rather than as additional elements for consideration at the finding of a practical application. Examiner finds similarly with respect to the calculating limitations identified by Applicant the bottom of page 11 – these elements are considered at the finding of an abstract idea rather than an additional element.
Applicant turns to a discussion of the mental process on page 12 are found unpersuasive again, for similar reasons – the elements Applicant is arguing are a part of the abstract idea identification rather than any additional elements.
Examiner is unclear where, as asserted on page 13, issue is taken with the “realistic time frame.” Examiner notes that the analysis above reflects the elements argued on page 13 in the mathematical category rather than the mental process category.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5920. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537 The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687