Detailed Notice
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/11/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 5-6, 12, 15, 18, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-21 are rejected
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 1-21 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.
Step 1:
In the instant case, claims 1-11 are directed toward a non-transitory media (i.e., manufacture), claims 12-17 are directed toward a system (i.e., machine), and claims 18-21 are directed toward a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A—Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 12, and 18 recites steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitations of a certain method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Claim 1 recites: “One or more non-transitory media having computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform a plurality of operations, the operations comprising: accessing reference information about a reference population of patients treated for pneumonia; utilizing a first machine-learning electronic model and the reference information to select a first plurality of features for inclusion in a potential feature pool; utilizing a second machine-learning electronic model, different from the first machine-learning electronic model, to select a second plurality of features from the potential feature pool for predicting pneumonia readmission; receiving pre-discharge information for a patient during a clinical encounter of the patient for a patient condition associated with pneumonia; determining a particular set of features of the pre-discharge information for the patient based on the second plurality of features selected for predicting pneumonia readmission; applying one or more machine learning models to the particular set of features to generate a prediction of the patient being readmitted for pneumonia; and based on the prediction of whether the patient will be readmitted for pneumonia, initiating via the one or more hardware processors a set of intervening actions prior to discharge to reduce a likelihood of readmission, the set of intervening actions performed by automatically modifying computer code or data used at an executing healthcare software program for treating the patient and/or discharging planning, thereby transforming the software program at runtime”.
The limitations of accessing reference information about a reference population of patients treated for pneumonia; utilizing a first machine-learning electronic model and the reference information to select a first plurality of features for inclusion in a potential feature pool; utilizing a second machine-learning electronic model, different from the first machine-learning electronic model, to select a second plurality of features from the potential feature pool for predicting pneumonia readmission; receiving pre-discharge information for a patient during a clinical encounter of the patient for a patient condition associated with pneumonia; determining a particular set of features of the pre-discharge information for the patient based on the second plurality of features selected for predicting pneumonia readmission; applying one or more machine learning models to the particular set of features to generate a prediction of the patient being readmitted for pneumonia; and based on the prediction of whether the patient will be readmitted for pneumonia, initiating via the one or more hardware processors a set of intervening actions prior to discharge to reduce a likelihood of readmission, the set of intervening actions performed by automatically modifying computer code or data used at an executing healthcare software program for treating the patient and/or discharging planning, thereby transforming the software program at runtime, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions—in this case the aforementioned steps recite a process of accessing, utilizing, select, receiving, determining, applying, generating, initiating, modifying, and transforming, which is properly interpreted as a “personal behavior”), but instead automates the process via a computer model, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements”, and will be discussed in further detail below.
Further, the abstract idea of claims 12 and 18 are identical as the abstract idea of claim 1. This limitation, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, also falls under the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-, 17, and 19-21 include other limitations, as well as specific step of data to be processed, received, and applied, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea and do not add and additional elements, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 12, and 18. However, recitation of an abstract idea is not the end of the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis. Each of the claims must be analyzed for additional elements that indicate the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application to determine whether the claim is considered to be “directed to” an abstract idea.
Step 2A—Prong 2:
Claims 1-21 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception—for example, the recitation of “non-transitory media”, “system”, “computer-implemented”, “machine learning models”, and “processors”, which amount to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see FIG. 1, [0014]-[0015], and [0023], of the present specification, and see further MPEP 2106.05(f);
Generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, for example, “a first machine-learning electronic model”, “utilizing a second machine-learning electronic model, different from the first machine-learning electronic model, to…”, “applying one or more machine learning models to the particular set of features to…”, and “via the one or more hardware processors”, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of technology/the environment of computers, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
Merely acquiring information for further analysis by the system and the particular manner of acquisition is not described or shown to be important, for example, “accessing reference information about a reference population of patients treated for pneumonia” and “receiving pre-discharge information for a patient during a clinical encounter of the patient for a patient condition associated with pneumonia”, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering because it merely functions tangentially to the main idea of the invention and serves only to bring in the data necessary for the inventions main analysis, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-11, 13-, 17, and 19-21 include other limitations, (such as “gradient tree model” in claims 9-10, 16, and 20), but as stated above, the limitations recited by these claims do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, which even when reevaluated under the considerations of Step 2B of the analysis, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-, 17, and 19-21 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1, 12, and 18, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements (i.e., “accessing reference information about a reference population of patients treated for pneumonia” and “receiving pre-discharge information for a patient during a clinical encounter of the patient for a patient condition associated with pneumonia”), add extra solution activity, which comprises limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in a particular field as demonstrated by:
Relevant court decisions (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-21 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Rejection, the amendments to the claims overcome the Rejection made by the Examiner because the amendments to claims removed “the one or more intervening actions are initiated prior to discharge of the patient to reduce a likelihood of readmission of the patient, and the patient is diagnosed with pneumonia and treated for the patient condition associated with the pneumonia, wherein treating the patient for the patient condition associated with the pneumonia comprises: administering to the patient a pneumonia medication that is based at least in part on the pre-discharge information, for the patient, and on the clinical encounter of the patient for the patient condition associated with the pneumonia”, which was not shown to have support in the specification. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C 112(a) Rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection, Applicant argues the new amendments to independent claims are similar to the claims in the parent application, which led to the withdrawal of all patent-eligibility rejections in the parent application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the parent application was granted for integrating the abstract idea because of the intervening actions being performed automatically to treat the patient, guidance has changed to highlight how a particular treatment should actually be interpretated. See the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Example 49 Claim 1, “The claim also recites the additional element of “administering an appropriate treatment to the glaucoma patient at high risk of PI” in limitation (c). Although this limitation indicates that a treatment is to be administered, it does not provide any information as to how the patient is to be treated or what the treatment is, but instead covers any possible treatment that a medical professional decides to administer to the patient. As such, there are no meaningful constraints on the administering step such that the particular treatment or prophylaxis consideration would apply because it is not limited to any particular manner or type of treatment” (see further See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)). The intervening action/treatment as recited in the claims is similar to the Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78 (2012), where the example claim merely provides the identification made in limitation (b) to the relevant audience (such as a physician or another medical professional) and at most adds a suggestion to take that identification into account when treating patients. Therefore, the claims are not eligible, and the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant also argues the independent claim 1 does not recite a human, does not recite influencing or organizing a certain activity of the human, therefore the claims do not recite an abstract idea, but rather organizing the activity of multiple sets of machine learning models. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II recites “the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping”. The limitations of accessing a reference information…, utilizing a model… and second model, receiving pre-discharge information…, determining a particular set of features…, applying one or more models, initiating an intervening action are all steps a person can reasonably be performed with a computer. Therefore, the claims still recite an abstract idea.
Applicant also argues claim 1 improves a technical field as explained in Applicant’s Amendment and Reply dated 09/24/2024, therefore is eligible because the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and amount to significantly more (under Step 2B). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the additional elements individually or as a whole amount to generic computer tools that are being applied to the abstract idea or amounts to extra solution activity by simple data gathering. This is not shown to be an improvement and thus, the claims also ineligible under Prong 2 and Step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05(h) “Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: i. A step of administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to patients with an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, because limiting drug administration to this patient population did no more than simply refer to the relevant pre-existing audience of doctors who used thiopurine drugs to treat patients suffering from autoimmune disorders, Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012)” and see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Applicant argues independent claims 12 and 18 recite similar or analogous features of claim 1, therefore the claims are patent eligible. Examiner respectfully disagrees as shown in the analysis and response to arguments above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHAEL SOJIN STONE whose telephone number is (571)272-8798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM - 7 PM (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, Peter Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/R.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights