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 5/11/2026 in which claims 1, 6-11, 13-14, and 19-20 have been amended, claim 12 has been canceled. Thus, the claims 1-11 and 13-20 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 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining and transmitting a trauma-triage category for the patient without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 20 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1, 14, and 20.
Claim 20 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 20 describes a method comprising a series of steps, e.g., receiving, by the first processing circuitry of a mobile computing device via a user interface of the mobile computing device, user input comprising a set of parameters indicating a prehospital condition of a trauma patient; wirelessly transmitting, by the first processing circuitry, the set of parameters to a remote server; receiving, by second processing circuitry of the remote server, the set of parameters; determine, based on a comparison of the user input of the set of parameters to a predefined parameter set, that the user input lacks at least one parameter from the predefined parameter set; determining the at least one parameter lacking from the user input as one or more missing parameters, the predefined parameter set being used by one or more machine-learning algorithms to determine a trauma-triage category for the trauma patient; calculate, based on a set of training data previously used to train the one or more machine-learning algorithms, one or more default values for the one or more missing parameters, wherein the set of training data comprises values for the missing parameters from a plurality of past patients different than the trauma patient; generate one or more indicator variables for the one or more missing parameters to indicate one or more values are imputed; impute the one or more default values to the one or more indicator values, wherein the set of parameters from the user input and the indicator variables with the imputed one or more default values represent the predefined parameter set for the trauma patient; applying, by the second processing circuitry, the predefined parameter set to the one or more machine-learning algorithms trained to determine, based on the predefined parameter set, the trauma-triage category for the trauma patient, wherein the trauma-triage category for the trauma patient indicates a trauma-triage recommendation for the trauma patient; wirelessly transmitting, by the second processing circuitry to the mobile computing device, the trauma-triage category for the trauma patient; receive, by the first processing circuitry from the remote server, the trauma-triage category; and outputting for display, by the first processing circuitry via the user interface, an indication of the trauma-triage category. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe the abstract idea of determining and transmitting a trauma-triage category for the patient. Furthermore, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of a first/second processing circuitry, a mobile computing device, a user interface, wirelessly feature, a remote server, and one or more machine-learning algorithms do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 20 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 first/second processing circuitry, a mobile computing device, a user interface, wirelessly feature, a remote server, and one or more machine-learning algorithms result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a first/second processing circuitry, a mobile computing device, a user interface, wirelessly feature, a remote server, and one or more machine-learning algorithms are recited at a high level of generality, and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing device. The presence of a generic computing device does nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPRP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of a first/second processing circuitry, a mobile computing device, a user interface, wirelessly feature, a remote server, and one or more machine-learning algorithms are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. 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 20 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a first/second processing circuitry, a mobile computing device, a user interface, wirelessly feature, a remote server, and one or more machine-learning algorithms are recited at a high level of generality in that it result 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 elements provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to other independent claims 1 and 14 and hence the claims 1 and 14 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 20.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13, and 15-19 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 14, and 20 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract in nature for the reasons presented above. 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 2-11, 13, and 15-19 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-11 and 13-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Examiner withdraws 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-20 in view of the amendment/argument.
Examiner withdraws 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-20 in view of the amendment/argument.
Applicant's arguments filed dated 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that
under Step 2A Prong 2, claim 1 explicitly describes features that enable a technological solution to the problem of incomplete patient data. Indeed, claim 1 recites particular techniques that enable a system to determine a trauma-triage category for the patient even if there is a missing parameter from the user input, which enables the system to determine a trauma-triage category by calculating a default value for the missing parameter, generating one or more indicator variables for the one or more missing parameters to indicate one or more values are imputed, and imputing the one or more default values to the one or more indicator values to arrive at a predefined parameter set for the patient by the medical technology.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that assigning a default value for the missing parameter is an abstract concept and does not amount to technical improvement. For example, assigning any value to the missing parameter would allow one to determine triage-trauma category. The claim does not describe why having a particular value is critical in determining a triage-trauma category in order to treat a particular patient in a manner that would otherwise be not possible. It is also not clear why assigning a particular triage-trauma category is so important in order to treat a patient. If the triage-trauma category is not properly identified due to missing parameter, would it not result in proper treatment. The claim needs to describe why it is so important to have a proper triage-trauma category and the missing parameter makes it so difficult to provide proper care to the patient. The claim needs to describe specific technical details as to why assigning correct value for the missing parameter is necessary in order to provide proper care to the patient. In the absence of this, assigning a value is nothing more than assigning any value to the missing parameter and then determining the triage-trauma category. This does not provide any technical improvement that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and hence these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2B, Applicant states that claim 1 recites specific and ordered techniques for a computing system to identify and correct incomplete data sets that would otherwise prevent the system from applying the patient data to machine learning algorithms.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that as explained above identifying and correcting incomplete data sets is nothing more than assigning any value to the messing parameter which is an abstract concept and does not provide any technical improvement. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it amounts to applying the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements do not amount to add significantly more.
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