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 Final Office Action is in response to the Amendment and Remarks filed 08/15/2025. Claims 1, 13 and 20 are amended. Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are 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 1-6 and 8-20 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 generation of feedback information to provide personalized recovery evaluation performed by a first communication device, the method comprising: receiving, by the first communication device, information related to a person during a health care procedure of the person; generating, by the first communication device, feedback information related to the person based on the received information related to the person, wherein the information related to the person includes one or more micro expression video clips captured by one or more patient wearable devices and cameras; and sending, by the first communication device, the feedback information related to the person to a terminal device of the person, wherein generating feedback information related to the person based on the received information related to the person comprises: determining, by the first communication device, one or more factors having a strong relationship of the health care procedure based on the information related to at least one quickest recovering person, wherein the at least one quickest recovering person and the person belong to a same or similar health group; and using, by the first communication device, the one or more factors, analyzing a gap between the at least one quickest recovering person and the person, to provide personalized recovery evaluation.
Independent claims 13 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations and include “a second communication device” (Claim 20) and “a third communication device” (Claim 13). The claimed invention is broadly directed to the abstract idea of collecting patient(s) information, analyzing the information, and determining feedback related to a patient (person) based on the analyses.
The limitations of “receiving information related to a person during a health care procedure of the person; generating feedback information related to the person based on the information related to the person; sending the feedback information related to the person to the person, wherein generating feedback information related to the person based on the received information related to the person comprises: determining one or more factors having a strong relationship of the health care procedure based on the information related to at least one quickest recovering person, wherein the at least one quickest recovering person and the person belong to a same or similar health group; and using the one or more factors, analyzing a gap between the at least one quickest recovering person and the person, to provide personalized recovery evaluation,” 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 “first communication device” and “terminal device” of claim 1, “third communication device” of claim 13 and “second communication device” of claim 20, receiving and analyzing patient data and generating feedback information related to the person based on the analyses, 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 generate feedback 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 data, and determining particular relevant feedback 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 communication devices, one or more micro expression video clips captured by one or more patient wearable devices and cameras, and a terminal device 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 implying a generic computer system, reciting various communication and terminal devices, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic communication and terminal devices, receiving information related to a person during a health care procedure and generating feedback information related to a person based on the information related to a person during a health care procedure, in the context of this claim, encompasses one skilled in the pertinent art to manually determine the details of the data for analysis and feedback 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 communication devices, one or more micro expression video clips captured by one or more patient wearable devices and cameras, and a terminal device for analyzing, sending and receiving feedback information related to a person during a health care procedure. The devices 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, or as mathematical concepts) 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 communication devices, one or more micro expression video clips captured by one or more patient wearable devices and cameras, and a terminal device for analyzing, sending and receiving information 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 and 15 describe feedback information authorized by a health specialist and further narrows the abstract idea. Claim 3 details the generation of feedback information and narrows the abstract idea. Claim 4 generates preliminary feedback information and provides that information to a specialist, further narrowing the abstract idea. Claims 5 and 16 detail information related to a person and further narrows the abstract idea. Claim 6 compares information related to the person and further narrows the abstract idea. Claims 8 and 18 further define information related to a person and further narrows the abstract idea. Claim 9 weights information related to a person and further narrows the abstract idea. Claim 10 sends information related to the person to a second communication device, 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, 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 11 and 17 describe health plans and further narrows the abstract idea. Claims 12 and 19 define the health care procedure and further narrows the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed August 15, 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not entirely persuasive. The following explains why:
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to prior art rejections are persuasive. As such, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 has been withdrawn. In particular, the prior art does not particularly describe “determining, by the first communication device, one or more factors having a strong relationship to the health care procedure based on the information related to at least one quickest recovering person, wherein the at least one quickest recovering person and the person belong to a same or similar health group; [and] using, by the first communication device, the one or more factors, analyzing a gap between the at least one quickest recovering person and the person, to provide personalized recovery evaluation.”
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 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG). The arguments at pages 10-16 of Applicant’s Response are not persuasive. The Examiner disagrees there is not an abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees that there is a technological improvement presented in the claims. The examiner disagrees there is a practical application that is integrated in the claims. The visual media (obtained from wearable devices and cameras) and computing devices to analyze the feedback information and received information to form predictions are merely a computer tool used to employ the abstract idea. The “patient wearable devices and cameras” and “communication devices” in the claims are recited at a high level, and amount to applying the exception using a generic computer (See e.g. Updated PEG Example 47, claim 2, where the “detecting” and “analyzing” were mental processes, and “using the trained ANN” amounted to generic computer implementation). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons and those stated above, the claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
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, MARC Q. JIMENEZ can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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 3681
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights