DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s arguments and request for continued examination of application 17931908 (09/14/22) filed on 01/15/26.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites, “receiving, at a processor, data from a plurality of physiological assessments performed by a specific individual, said assessments comprising at least one cognitive test and at least one walking test providing gait characteristics measured from video dat
This should be -- receiving, at a processor, data from a plurality of physiological assessments performed by a specific individual, said plurality of physiological assessments comprising at least one cognitive test and at least one walking test providing gait characteristics measured from video datplurality of physiological assessments are of a type that [[DELETE masures]] measures a physiological state predictive of at least one of frailty, disability, or mortality; -- or something similar.
Inconsistent terminology.
Typo.
Claim 6 recites, “determining a percentile-specific age for said actuarial event based on said received said physiological assessments;”
This should be -- determining a percentile-specific age for said actuarial event based on said received said plurality of physiological assessments; -- or something similar.
Inconsistent terminology.
Claim 6 recites, “generating said new data structure, said new data structure comprising a personalized mortality table, wherein said generating comprises modifying said base mortality table by raising each mortality probability of said plurality of mortality probabilities to a power of a function of said personalized adjusting factor, and wherein said personalized mortality table reflects the received data from said physiological assessments.”
This should be -- generating said new data structure, said new data structure comprising a personalized mortality table, wherein said generating comprises modifying said base mortality table by raising each mortality probability of said plurality of mortality probabilities to a power of a function of said personalized adjusting factor, and wherein said personalized mortality table reflects the received data from said plurality of physiological assessments. -- or something similar.
Inconsistent terminology.
Claim 12 recites, “receiving, at a processor, data from a plurality of physiological assessments performed by a specific individual, said assessments comprising at least one cognitive test and at least one walking test providing gait characteristics measured from video data, wherein said physiological assessments are of a type that measures a physiological state predictive of at least one of frailty, disability, or mortality;”
This should be -- receiving, at a processor, data from a plurality of physiological assessments performed by a specific individual, said plurality of physiological assessments comprising at least one cognitive test and at least one walking test providing gait characteristics measured from video data, wherein said plurality of physiological assessments are of a type that measures a physiological state predictive of at least one of frailty, disability, or mortality; -- or something similar.
Inconsistent terminology.
Claim 12 recites, “generating said new data structure, said new data structure comprising a personalized mortality table, wherein said generating comprises modifying said base mortality table by raising each mortality probability of said plurality of mortality probabilities to a power of a function of said personalized adjusting factor, and wherein said personalized mortality table reflects the received data from said physiological assessments.”
This should be -- generating said new data structure, said new data structure comprising a personalized mortality table, wherein said generating comprises modifying said base mortality table by raising each mortality probability of said plurality of mortality probabilities to a power of a function of said personalized adjusting factor, and wherein said personalized mortality table reflects the received data from said plurality of physiological assessments. -- or something similar.
Inconsistent terminology.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 6 - 12 is/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.
Re Claims 6 - 11:
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 6, is/are directed to a process (i.e. computer-implemented method).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Mathematical Concepts
The claim recites a mathematical formula or calculation (calculating ….. a statistical shift for said individual; calculating said statistical shift based on a difference between said percentile-specific age and said average age; determining ….. a personalized adjusting factor based on said calculated statistical shift; raising each mortality probability of said plurality of mortality probabilities to a power of a function of said personalized adjusting factor, and wherein said personalized mortality table reflects the received data from said plurality of physiological assessments.). Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is involves receiving ….. data from a plurality of physiological assessments performed by a specific individual, said plurality of physiological assessments comprising at least one cognitive test and at least one walking test providing gait characteristics measured from video data, wherein said plurality of physiological assessments are of a type that measures a physiological state predictive of at least one of frailty, disability, or mortality; accessing a base mortality table comprising a plurality of mortality probabilities; calculating ….. a statistical shift for said individual by:
determining an average age for an actuarial event from said base mortality table;
determining a percentile-specific age for said actuarial event based on said received said plurality of physiological assessments; and calculating said statistical shift based on a difference between said percentile-specific age and said average age;
determining ….. a personalized adjusting factor based on said calculated statistical shift; and generating said new data structure, said new data structure comprising a personalized mortality table, wherein said generating comprises modifying said base mortality table by raising each mortality probability of said plurality of mortality probabilities to a power of a function of said personalized adjusting factor, and wherein said personalized mortality table reflects the received data from said plurality of physiological assessments, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (generating a new data structure, said new data structure comprising a personalized mortality table); commercial or legal (generating a new data structure, said new data structure comprising a personalized mortality table); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (receiving, accessing, calculating, determining, generating, modifying, raising).
The mere nominal recitation of “computer-implemented” (preamble only) and a “processor” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to receiving ….. data from a plurality of physiological assessments performed by a specific individual, said plurality of physiological assessments comprising at least one cognitive test and at least one walking test providing gait characteristics measured from video data, wherein said plurality of physiological assessments are of a type that measures a physiological state predictive of at least one of frailty, disability, or mortality; accessing a base mortality table comprising a plurality of mortality probabilities; calculating ….. a statistical shift for said individual by: determining an average age for an actuarial event from said base mortality table; determining a percentile-specific age for said actuarial event based on said received said plurality of physiological assessments; and calculating said statistical shift based on a difference between said percentile-specific age and said average age;
determining ….. a personalized adjusting factor based on said calculated statistical shift; and generating said new data structure, said new data structure comprising a personalized mortality table, wherein said generating comprises modifying said base mortality table by raising each mortality probability of said plurality of mortality probabilities to a power of a function of said personalized adjusting factor, and wherein said personalized mortality table reflects the received data from said plurality of physiological assessments.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented” (preamble only) and a “processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. In other words, the claim encompasses the user manually receiving ….. data from a plurality of physiological assessments performed by a specific individual, said plurality of physiological assessments comprising at least one cognitive test and at least one walking test providing gait characteristics measured from video data, wherein said plurality of physiological assessments are of a type that measures a physiological state predictive of at least one of frailty, disability, or mortality; accessing a base mortality table comprising a plurality of mortality probabilities; calculating ….. a statistical shift for said individual by: determining an average age for an actuarial event from said base mortality table; determining a percentile-specific age for said actuarial event based on said received said plurality of physiological assessments; and calculating said statistical shift based on a difference between said percentile-specific age and said average age; determining ….. a personalized adjusting factor based on said calculated statistical shift; and generating said new data structure, said new data structure comprising a personalized mortality table, wherein said generating comprises modifying said base mortality table by raising each mortality probability of said plurality of mortality probabilities to a power of a function of said personalized adjusting factor, and wherein said personalized mortality table reflects the received data from said plurality of physiological assessments. NOTE: (a) The claim is exclusively from the perspective of a “processor” with respect to some positively recited steps or acts, or silent regarding who/what is performing some positively recited steps or acts.
The mere nominal recitation of “computer-implemented” (preamble only) and a “processor” does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea). Is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “computer-implemented” (preamble only) performing some of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of a “processor” performing some of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention. The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “accessing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “calculating”, “determining”, “generating”, “modifying”, “raising”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering actuarial data (e.g., “physiological assessments” comprising “at least one cognitive test” and “at least one walking test providing gait characteristics measured from video data”), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim is recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the step(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 9/14/22 does not provide any indication that the claimed invention incorporates anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components, see at least paragraphs [0071] [0072] [0073]. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Briggs, US Pat. No. 10,580,077 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “accessing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “calculating”, “determining”, “generating”, “modifying”, “raising”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. See Briggs, abstract, col. 2, lines 40 - 57; col. 3, lines 22+ - col. 4, line 38; col. 5, lines 16 - 32; col. 6, lines 26 - 67. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “accessing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “calculating”, “determining”, “generating”, “modifying”, “raising”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 7 - 11 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Re Claim 12:
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 12, is/are directed to a process (i.e. computer-implemented method).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Mathematical Concepts
The claim recites a mathematical formula or calculation (calculating ….. a statistical shift for said individual based on said received data; determining ….. a personalized adjusting factor based on said calculated statistical shift; raising each mortality probability of said plurality of mortality probabilities to a power of a function of said personalized adjusting factor, and wherein said personalized mortality table reflects the received data from said plurality of physiological assessments.). Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is involves receiving ….. data from a plurality of physiological assessments performed by a specific individual, said plurality of physiological assessments comprising at least one cognitive test and at least one walking test providing gait characteristics measured from video data, wherein said plurality of physiological assessments are of a type that measures a physiological state predictive of at least one of frailty, disability, or mortality; accessing a base mortality table comprising a plurality of mortality probabilities; calculating ….. a statistical shift for said individual based on said received data; determining ….. a personalized adjusting factor based on said calculated statistical shift; and generating said new data structure, said new data structure comprising a personalized mortality table, wherein said generating comprises modifying said base mortality table by raising each mortality probability of said plurality of mortality probabilities to a power of a function of said personalized adjusting factor, and wherein said personalized mortality table reflects the received data from said plurality of physiological assessments, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (generating a new data structure, said new data structure comprising a personalized mortality table); commercial or legal (generating a new data structure, said new data structure comprising a personalized mortality table); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (receiving, accessing, calculating, determining, generating, modifying, raising).
The mere nominal recitation of “computer-implemented” (preamble only) and a “processor” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to receiving ….. data from a plurality of physiological assessments performed by a specific individual, said plurality of physiological assessments comprising at least one cognitive test and at least one walking test providing gait characteristics measured from video data, wherein said plurality of physiological assessments are of a type that measures a physiological state predictive of at least one of frailty, disability, or mortality; accessing a base mortality table comprising a plurality of mortality probabilities; calculating ….. a statistical shift for said individual based on said received data; determining ….. a personalized adjusting factor based on said calculated statistical shift; and generating said new data structure, said new data structure comprising a personalized mortality table, wherein said generating comprises modifying said base mortality table by raising each mortality probability of said plurality of mortality probabilities to a power of a function of said personalized adjusting factor, and wherein said personalized mortality table reflects the received data from said plurality of physiological assessments.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented” (preamble only) and a “processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. In other words, the claim encompasses the user manually receiving ….. data from a plurality of physiological assessments performed by a specific individual, said plurality of physiological assessments comprising at least one cognitive test and at least one walking test providing gait characteristics measured from video data, wherein said plurality of physiological assessments are of a type that measures a physiological state predictive of at least one of frailty, disability, or mortality; accessing a base mortality table comprising a plurality of mortality probabilities; calculating ….. a statistical shift for said individual based on said received data; determining ….. a personalized adjusting factor based on said calculated statistical shift; and generating said new data structure, said new data structure comprising a personalized mortality table, wherein said generating comprises modifying said base mortality table by raising each mortality probability of said plurality of mortality probabilities to a power of a function of said personalized adjusting factor, and wherein said personalized mortality table reflects the received data from said plurality of physiological assessments. NOTE: (a) The claim is exclusively from the perspective of a “processor” with respect to some positively recited steps or acts, or silent regarding who/what is performing some positively recited steps or acts.
The mere nominal recitation of “computer-implemented” (preamble only) and a “processor” does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea). Is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “computer-implemented” (preamble only) performing some of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of a “processor” performing some of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention. The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “accessing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “calculating”, “determining”, “generating”, “modifying”, “raising”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering actuarial data (e.g., “physiological assessments” comprising “at least one cognitive test” and “at least one walking test providing gait characteristics measured from video data”), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim is recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the step(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 9/14/22 does not provide any indication that the claimed invention incorporates anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components, see at least paragraphs [0071] [0072] [0073]. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Briggs, US Pat. No. 10,580,077 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “accessing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “calculating”, “determining”, “generating”, “modifying”, “raising”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. See Briggs, abstract, col. 2, lines 40 - 57; col. 3, lines 22+ - col. 4, line 38; col. 5, lines 16 - 32; col. 6, lines 26 - 67. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “accessing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “calculating”, “determining”, “generating”, “modifying”, “raising”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Objections
Please note the objections withdrawn and maintained in light of applicant’s arguments and/ or amendments.
101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1)Applicant argues the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Applicant suggests the claimed invention presents a “practical application” because it (a) provides a technical solution to a technical problem; (b) provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; and (c) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g., “The claimed invention improves the technical field of actuarial science by creating this new and improved data structure, which in turn transforms the field from a static, historical analysis into a dynamic, forward-looking predictive science.” See pg. 6 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 01/15/26). The Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments suggesting the claimed invention (a) provides a technical solution to a technical problem; and (b) provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field suggests the applicant believes the technical aspects of the invention are substantial. There exists alternative perspectives however.
With respect to applicant’s “solution”/ “improvements”. “Actuarial Science” such as insurance (e.g., generating a new data structure, said new data structure comprising a personalized mortality table) is directed to the underlying abstract idea, not the functioning of the computer itself. What applicant is really arguing is the use of a computer as a tool or the benefits of automation itself.
NOTE: This interpretation is consistent with applicant’s specification as filed 09/14/22. For example, para. [0002] [0003] of applicant’s specification as filed 09/14/22 states:
[0002] The present invention relates to insurance generally and to underwriting of insurance policies in particular.
[0003] Currently, when requesting underwriting for insurance policies, customers share their historical medical records/conditions and insurance actuaries have various tables (e.g., mortality tables, disability tables, etc.) which they use to determine the costs of the insurance policies. Each row of these tables lists an age and its related probabilities, such as: the probability of a healthy person to file a claim, to die, to die if they are living in an institution, etc.
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception is not
not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP § 2106.05(f). Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05(f).
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding “transformation”, applicant appears to argue that the “article” is the “base mortality table” and that it is transformed via formatting or translation to a “new data structure comprising a personalized mortality table”. This is not the type of “transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing” contemplated however. This is a transformation of an intangible concept such as data processing. See also, MPEP §2106.05(c).
Contrary to applicant’s arguments, features applicant relies upon are “insignificant” (e.g., “This transformation is achieved through a specific, concrete process: 1. A Specific, Unconventional Input: The process begins by receiving data from a specific class of ‘physiological assessments ... predictive of at least one of frailty, disability, or mortality’ (paragraphs [0026], [0037]). This is not abstract information, but a specific, technical data input that is entirely unconventional in the actuarial field.
2. A New and Improved Output: The process concludes by ‘generating said new data
Structure’ which comprises a personalized mortality table that structurally ‘reflects the
received data from said physiological assessments". See pg. 6 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 01/15/26.).
For example, they amount to “necessary data gathering and outputting” (e.g., “receiving ….. data from a plurality of physiological assessments performed by a specific individual, said assessments comprising at least one cognitive test and at least one walking test providing gait characteristics measured from video dat
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
Collecting information (e.g., “receiving ….. data from cognitive tests and gait characteristics measured from video data of a walking test for a specific individual; accessing a base mortality table comprising a plurality of mortality probabilities;”); and analyzing it (e.g., Regarding claims 6 - 11 “calculating ….. a statistical shift for said individual by: determining an average age for an actuarial event from said base mortality table; determining a percentile-specific age for said actuarial event based on said received said plurality of physiological assessments; and calculating said statistical shift based on a difference between said percentile-specific age and said average age; determining ….. a personalized adjusting factor based on said calculated statistical shift; and generating said new data structure, said new data structure comprising a personalized mortality table, wherein said generating comprises modifying said base mortality table by raising each mortality probability of said plurality of mortality probabilities to a power of a function of said personalized adjusting factor, and wherein said personalized mortality table reflects the received data from said plurality of physiological assessments”. Regarding claim 12 “calculating ….. a statistical shift for said individual based on said received data; determining ….. a personalized adjusting factor based on said calculated statistical shift; and generating said new data structure, said new data structure comprising a personalized mortality table, wherein said generating comprises modifying said base mortality table by raising each mortality probability of said plurality of mortality probabilities to a power of a function of said personalized adjusting factor, and wherein said personalized mortality table reflects the received data from said plurality of physiological assessments”.); and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis merely indicates a field of use or technical environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (h).
(2) Applicant argues inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)). Applicant argues the claimed invention is not “well-understood, routine, or conventional”.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 9/14/22 does not provide any indication that the claimed invention incorporates anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components, see at least paragraphs [0071] [0072] [0073]. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Briggs, US Pat. No. 10,580,077 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “accessing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “calculating”, “determining”, “generating”, “modifying”, “raising”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. See Briggs, abstract, col. 2, lines 40 - 57; col. 3, lines 22+ - col. 4, line 38; col. 5, lines 16 - 32; col. 6, lines 26 - 67. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “accessing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “calculating”, “determining”, “generating”, “modifying”, “raising”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 7 - 11 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
(3) Applicant argues “commercial success”.
Commercial success is not one of the 2(A), PRONG 2 considerations that is indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, the examiner response above with respect to 2(A), PRONG 2 and “integration into a practical application”. Commercial success is not proof the claimed invention is significantly more than the judicial exception under 2(B) and is not proof the claimed invention is not “well-understood, routine, or conventional”. See also, the examiner response above with respect to 2(B) and “inventive concept”. Commercial success is most relevant as a consideration with respect to prior art/ nonobviousness, not with respect to 101 as applicant argues here.
Furthermore, applicant has not provided any actual evidence of commercial success, just a blanket statement.
See also MPEP §716, particularly MPEP § 716.01 and MPEP §716.03.
112
Withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments and/ or amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and relates to a personalized mortality table.
Pnevmatikakis A, Kanavos S, Matikas G, Kostopoulou K, Cesario A, Kyriazakos S. Risk assessment for personalized health insurance based on real-world data. Risks. 2021 Mar 1;9(3):46.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, 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, Christine Tran can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/SARA C HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights