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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 03, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action for the 17/917577 application is in response to the communications filed September 03, 2025.
Claim 1 was amended August 04, 2025.
Claim 20 was cancelled August 04, 2025.
Claim 21 was added as new August 04, 2025.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are currently pending and considered below.
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 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1,
Step 1: The claim recites subject matter within a statutory category as a manufacture.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which Prong 1 determines whether a claim recites a judicial exception. Prong 2 determines if the additional limitations of the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. If the additional elements of the claim fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim contains subject matter that recites an abstract idea, with the steps of monitoring progression of a disease: obtain a predefined set of S discrete stages for the disease, wherein S is an integer having a value greater than or equal to two, for each discrete stage of the S discrete stages, define a representative vector for the discrete stage in a vector space defined by a set of clinical metrics based on a set of training patients labeled with the discrete stage and with values for the set of clinical metrics; for a patient to be staged, receive patient values for the set of clinical metrics; generate at least one stage value for the patient to be staged based on distances in the vector space between a patient vector defined in the vector space by the patient values for the set of clinical metrics and the representative vectors for the S discrete stages in the vector space; and determine the progression of the disease based on the art least one stage value for the patient. These steps, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation are directed to:
certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices including: hedging; insurance; mitigating risk; etc., commercial or legal interactions including: agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; etc., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including: social activities; teaching; following rules or instructions; etc.) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, but for the additional element(s) of “non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions for”, “the instruction, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to” and “display”, the identified abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon identified above, in the context of this claim, encompasses a certain method of organizing human activity, namely managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This is because each of the limitations of the abstract idea recites a list of rules or instructions that a human person can follow in the course of their personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers at least the recited methods of organizing human activity above, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f), such as:
“non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions for” and “the instruction, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to” which corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Paragraph [0029] of the as-filed specification describes the computer upon which the abstract idea is implemented on at a level of a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“display” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Accordingly, this claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“display” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 2,
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 2 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein, for each discrete stage of the S discrete stages, to define the representative vector for the discrete stage …: define training patient vectors in the vector space corresponding to the respective training patients labeled with the discrete stage by the values for the set of clinical metrics labeling the respective training patients; and define the representative vector for the discrete stage in the vector space as a centroid of the training patient vectors in the vector space.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 3,
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 3 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein to generate the at least one stage value…: identify a closest representative vector of the representative vectors for the S discrete stages for which the distance in the vector space between the patient vector and the representative vector is shortest; and generate a coarse stage value for the patient to be staged as the discrete stage represented by the closest representative vector” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“wherein the displaying includes displaying the coarse stage value.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 4,
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 4 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein to generate the at least one stage value …: identifying the two closest representative vectors of the representative vectors for the S discrete stages that are closest to the patient vector, the two closest representative vectors including a current stage representative vector corresponding to a current stage and a next stage representative vector corresponding to a next stage wherein the current stage is ordered lower than the next stage in the ordered set of S discrete stages; and generate a fine stage value for the patient to be staged based on the current stage, the next stage, the distance in the vector space between the patient vector and the current stage representative vector, and the distance in the vector space between the current stage representative vector and the next-stage representative vector.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 5,
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 5 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the fine stage value is generated based on the current stage, the next stage, and a ratio of: (i) a length of a projection of a current stage-to-patient vector defined as the vector starting at the current stage representative vector and ending at the patient vector onto a current stage-to-next stage vector defined as the vector starting at the current stage representative vector and ending at the next-stage representative vector, and (ii) a length of the current stage-to-next stage vector.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 6,
Claim 6 depends from claim 4 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 6 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the fine stage value is generated based on the current stage, the next stage, and a ratio: (||DN[Wingdings font/0xE0]Pa||)/(||DN[Wingdings font/0xE0]N+1||) where ∥DN→N+1∥ is the length of a vector DN→N+1 from the current stage representative vector to the next stage representative vector and DN→Pa is a vector given by the dot product: DN[Wingdings font/0xE0]P * (DN[Wingdings font/0xE0]N+1)/(||DN[Wingdings font/0xE0]N+1||), where DN→P is a vector from the current stage representative vector to the patient vector.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 7,
Claim 7 depends from claim 4 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 7 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the current stage is assigned a first integer value, the next stage is assigned a second integer value different from the first integer value, and the fine stage value is a real number lying between the first integer value and the second integer value.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 8,
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 2 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the distances in the vector space are computed using a distance function selected from a group including a Euclidean distance function, a Hamming distance function, a Geometric distance function, and a cosine distance function.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 9,
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 9 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein…: … assigning the discrete stage labels to the training patients using a deterministic staging algorithm based on values of a subset of the set of clinical metrics wherein the deterministic staging algorithm assigns a discrete stage selected from the predefined ordered set of S stages.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to” and “automatically” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 10,
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 10 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein …: select the set of clinical metrics from a superset of clinical metrics using an automated feature selection algorithm.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 11,
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 11 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein … associate the at least one stage value to treatment data comprising at least one intervention option to treat the patient, and the method further includes at least one of: … and commencing at least one treatment option to treat the patient based on the treatment data” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“displaying the treatment data” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 12,
Claim 12, is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
As per claim 13,
Claim 13, is substantially similar to claim 2. Accordingly claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
As per claim 14,
Claim 14, is substantially similar to claim 2. Accordingly claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
As per claim 15,
Claim 15, is substantially similar to claim 3. Accordingly claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
As per claim 16,
Claim 16, is substantially similar to claim 4. Accordingly claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
As per claim 17,
Claim 17, is substantially similar to claim 5. Accordingly claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
As per claim 18,
Claim 18, is substantially similar to claim 9. Accordingly claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
As per claim 19,
Claim 19, is substantially similar to claim 10. Accordingly claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 10.
As per claim 21,
Step 1: The claim recites subject matter within a statutory category as a machine.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which Prong 1 determines whether a claim recites a judicial exception. Prong 2 determines if the additional limitations of the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. If the additional elements of the claim fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim contains subject matter that recites an abstract idea, with the steps of monitoring progression of disease for a patient, comprising: a defined vector space comprising a plurality of representative vectors, each of the plurality of representative vectors representing a different one of a plurality of discrete stages for the disease, wherein each of the plurality of representative vectors is defined by a respective set of clinical metrics based on a set of training patients labeled with the discrete stage and with values for the set of clinical metrics; patient values for the set of clinical metrics; (i) receive the patient values for the set of clinical metrics; (ii) generate at least one stage value for the patient to be staged based on distances in the defined vector space between: (1) a patient vector defined in the vector space by the patient values for the set of clinical metrics and (2) the plurality of representative vectors; and (3) determine the progression of the disease based on the at least one stage value for the patient. These steps, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation recite:
certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices including: hedging; insurance; mitigating risk; etc., commercial or legal interactions including: agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; etc., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including: social activities; teaching; following rules or instructions; etc.) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The identified abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon identified above, in the context of this claim, encompasses a certain method of organizing human activity, namely managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This is because each of the limitations of the abstract idea recites a list of rules or instructions that a human person can follow in the course of their personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers at least the recited methods of organizing human activity above, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f), such as:
“A system for” and “a processor configured to:” which corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Paragraph [0029] of the as-filed specification describes the computer upon which the abstract idea is implemented on at a level of a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“a display configured to display the determined progression of the disease.” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Accordingly, this claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“a display configured to display the determined progression of the disease.” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-19 and 21 contain subject matter free of prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of subject matter free of prior art: The Examiner has conducted a thorough search of the prior art and could not find a single reference, or combination of references with adequate rationale to combine, to teach the limitation of:
“generate at least one stage value for the patient based on distances in the vector space between a patient vector defined in the vector space by the patient values for the set of clinical metrics and the representative vectors for the S discrete stages in the vector space”
In claim 1. Independent claims 12 and 21 recite a similar limitation. The closest prior art that the Examiner was able to find to teach this limitation was:
Klaiman et al. (US 2022/0139072; herein referred to as Klaiman): Relevant portions of reference: Paragraph [0011] and Figures 3A and 3B of Klaiman. Klaiman teaches a vector based assessment of similarity between tiles based on distance in a vector space. However, these tiles do not represent differences in stage progression of a disease. These vector distance measurements are based on similarity between images taken from a patient to determine a disease. The required disease staging of claim 1 is completely absent from Klaiman.
De Vries et al. (US 2021/0065912; herein referred to as De Vries): Relevant portions of reference: Paragraph [0037] of De Vries. De Vries teaches a vector-based data structure, or other data structure. In some embodiments, the data structure includes edges that reflect the assigned distances. For example, where each patient (profile) is assigned a vector that includes one or more dimensions indicating whether a patient has one or more medical conditions, data analysis component 24 may be configured to weigh a dimension of the medical condition in the patient vector with the probability of the patient developing the given medical condition to create a modified patient vector. In some embodiments, data analysis component 24 may be configured to weigh the dimension of the medical condition in the patient vector (instead or in addition to the probability) with severity and/or costs related to the medical condition to create a modified patient vector. For example, in some case where a patient already has a medical condition, the dimension between the patient profile and another patient profile may be weighed based on the severity of the medical condition in the patient vs the severity of the medical condition in the other patient. For example, two patient may have the same disease but at different stages of the disease. An advanced stage of the disease may have more weight than an early stage of the disease, for example. The same principle can be applied to the costs of the medical condition (i.e. the distance between two profiles can be weighed based on the costs related to medical condition for the two profiles). The same disease may have different costs related to the disease for different patients. For example, a patient who is admitted in a hospital may have different costs related to the disease than a patient is at home and only visits the hospital for treatment. Other factors that may affect the cost of treatments may include proximity to care providers, access to medication, access to technology, geographic areas, and/or other factors. However, the vector contains the stage of the disease for the patient. There would be no need for “generating at least one stage value” when the stage of the disease is already known.
Wirtz (US 2008/0305962): Relevant portions of reference: Paragraphs [0277], [0282], and [0382] of Wirtz. Wirtz teaches the usage of genetics to determine a vector distance between a training set of data and an input vector using a k-nearest neighbors analysis. The analysis includes values of expression of cells at different stages of cancer. However, this distance measurement between vectors is not based on the stage of cancer progression. It is based on survivor groups to predict the likelihood of a subjects survival of cancer. We can see this in paragraphs [0379]-[0381] of Wirtz. The classification of these categories is not analogous to determining a vector distance in differing cancer stages.
Ando et al. (US 10,467,754; herein referred to as Ando): Relevant portions of reference: Column 8 Lines 33-49, Column 12 Lines 32-67, Column 14 Lines 4-28, Column 31 Lines 16-35, and Column 37 Lines 30-43 and Figure 4C of Ando. Ando teaches determining vector distances between a target phenotype and candidate phenotypes. However, This vector measurement is not a measurement between differing stages of a disease. At best, the disclosed material suggests that vector distances can be determined between a target and a plurality of candidate vectors but the target vector merely represents a single stage where claim 1 requires a plurality of stages.
Looking at the best that the prior art has to offer, it is clear that none of the cited references disclose the limitations of claim 1. Even considering these references in combination, the Examiner would be unable to adequately establish obviousness without relying on the Applicant’s disclosure to do so. Accordingly, claims 1-19 and 21 contain subject matter free of prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 04, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the instant claims do not align with "following rules or instructions" because this consideration when viewed with In re Guldenaar, In re Brown, and Bilksi. Specifically, the mathematical functions of the pending claim are not functions that a human person can perform.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. It is clear to the Examiner that the Applicant's position is that the instant claims do not recite rules or instructions that a human person is following. However, this is not the extent of what can be considered "following rules or instructions". We can see that in BASCOM, a human performing the steps of an abstract idea need not be recited by the claim. BASCOM recited the human activity of filtering without a human doing the actual filtering. Rather it was the system that was doing the filtering. This definitively establishes that so long as the step in question is capable of being performed by a human, it recites human behavior regardless of whether a human is specifically claimed. With regard to the vector elements of the claim, vector analysis is a mathematical process and math is a human behavior. The steps involved with manipulating numbers predicate a human performing these manipulations.
The Applicant further argues that Ex parte Chen is applicable to the pending claims regardless of the similarity or dissimilarity. Dismissal of the holding of Ex parte Chen, without analysis or analogizing to the present case, is dismissal of the underlying Alice analysis set forth in the holding.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner respectfully submits the cited non-precedential PTAB decisions are specific to the facts before the panel, have not be subject to appellate review, and are not binding on the present rejection. As such, the Examiner declines to address them. A list of precedential and/or informative PTAB decisions that the Applicant may rely upon are listed at the following website: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions. The fact patterns between the pending claims and Ex parte Chen have no similarity whatsoever. The mere similarity of “medical system” is insufficient to establish any logical analogy. The Examiner is not bound to the holding of Ex parte Chen and such a declination to address the specifics of this non-precedential case is not a dismissal of Alice. The subject matter is simply not applicable.
The Applicant further argues that claim 21 recites only physical components and therefore cannot recite certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation of "a defined vector space..." is inherently abstract. A vector space is a mathematical construct that the system is implementing. There is no hardware in this limitation. However, the other structural limitations here further underscores the Examiner's preceding point. As long as the system is performing functions that a human person is capable of performing, it recites certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Applicant further argues that the instant claims address a technical problem in the field of medicine. Specifically, the improvement of monitoring progression of a disease.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has failed to identify what problem with monitoring is being addressed by the instant claims. Monitoring the progression of a patient's condition is not inherently a technical problem. For example, a nurse monitoring a patient and writing down their observations is not technical in nature. This characterizes human behavior which is explicitly abstract and ineligible. Accordingly, the Applicant needs to clearly identify what technology is being improved beyond merely tying the alleged problem to the field of medicine. The Applicant expands on this by identifying a problem with using patient data to determine a stage of disease of a patient to monitor progression of the disease. Again, this is not a technical problem inherently for the reasons indicated above.
The Applicant further argues that the instant claims recite something significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically, the instant claims provide for representation and display of the progression of the disease based on at least one stage value for the patient.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Displaying information to a user is not considered something significantly more than an abstract idea unless there is a technical improvement with how that data is being displayed. As claimed, the instant claims merely present information to a user by transmitting information over a network which the courts have determined to be well-known, routine and conventional.
The Applicant further argues that the instant claims are narrowly limited to a specific application of providing for representation and display of the progression of the disease based on at least one stage value for the patient.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. Merely presenting information on a display is insufficient to establish a narrowly limited specific application as consistent with the courts. Otherwise claims such as those in Electric Power Group would have been seen as eligible as opposed to ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A NEWTON whose telephone number is (313)446-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM (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, VICTORIA SHUMATE can be reached on (313)446-4858. 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.
/CHAD A NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681