Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, and 15-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action having a notification date of June 6, 2025 (“non-final Office Action”). Following the non-final Office Action, Applicant filed an amendment on September 8, 2025 (the “Amendment”), amending claims 1, 9, and 13 and adding new claims 21-22.
The present Final Office Action addresses pending claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, and 15-22 in the Amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §101
Starting on page 11 of the Amendment, Applicant broadly takes the position that a health data system configured to perform the claimed features is not related to "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" and that the Examiner has "oversimplified the claims" by looking at them generally without accounting for the specific requirements of the claims. The Examiner disagrees.
As set forth in the detailed analysis below in which the Examiner assessed all of the specific limitations of claims, the claimed invention allows for health information of a patient to be shared between different medical facilities upon retrieving consent “keys” and using the keys to access and modify the health information of the patient which is a method of managing interactions between people ("certain methods of organizing human behavior"). As an example, the steps are similar to a first physician determining that a second physician associated with an external system has data of his or her patient and then getting permission from the patient to access a particular portion of the data (an extent to which the first physician is allowed to access/review the data). For instance, the first physician could review a profile (metadata) of the patient to obtain a first "consent key” such as an encrypted code that grants access to a particular portion of the health information.
Thereafter, the first physician could use the permission/consent key to access the particular data portion from the second physician (e.g., via presenting the first consent key to the second physician) and later receive a second request from the second physician to modify the patient's health information stored with the first physician. For instance, after the second physician has evaluated the patient, the second physician could decide to update the patient information on his or her end and then make a corresponding change to the patient information with the first physician. In this regard, the second request received from the second physician could include a second consent key having a second encrypted patient identifier that grants access to the second physician to modify a particular portion of the patient health information.
Thereafter, the first physician can determine and verify that the second consent key provides consent from the patient to modify the health information and then allow the second physician to modify the health information (e.g., by editing the health information based on received changes from the second physician). Finally, the first physician can input the modified health information (e.g., updated test results, new diagnoses, etc.) into any appropriate algorithm and then receive an update to a treatment plan for the patient based on an output from the algorithm (e.g., a new medication to take, a new exercise to perform, etc.). The mere nominal recitations of the health data system with processor and external system do not take the claims out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping.
Applicant has not explained why the Examiner's above explanation does not amount to managing relations between people.
Applicant next asserts that the present claims do not amount to "mental processes" because they now call for the ML model to output a control signal to adjust functionality of a surgical instrument. It appears Applicant is now taking the position that if at least one limitation of the claim is not practically performable in the human mind, then the entire claim cannot be directed to a “mental process.” The Examiner disagrees and is not aware of any authority supporting this position as it would just emphasize form over substance. In contrast, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). While claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (See SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019)), the present claims in contrast do contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind. For instance, a person can practically in their mind with pen and paper make a determination that patent health information is stored in an external system, obtain (e.g., glean, look at, etc.) a consent key (e.g., password, code, etc.) for accessing the health information, access health information, determine an extent to which the health information can be modified, etc.
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Regarding the additional limitation of outputting the digital control signal from the ML model to adjust functionality of a surgical instrument, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea and because it is merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). This additional limitation also amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
On pages 12-13 of the Amendment, Applicant takes the position that the new limitation calling for the ML model to output a control signal to adjust functionality of a surgical instrument provides a "practical application" of the abstract idea(s) similar to how the "proactive measures" recited in claim 3 of USPTO Example 47 (dropping malicious network packets in real time and blocking future traffic from the source address) integrated the abstract idea into a practical application by improving the functioning of a computer or technical field. The Examiner disagrees.
More specifically, the abstract idea recited in claim 3 of Example 47 includes using a trained ML model to detect anomalies in network traffic and determining that one of the anomalies is associated with a malicious packet while the "additional limitations" of detecting a source address associated with the malicious network packet in real time, dropping malicious network packets in real time, and blocking future traffic from the source address provide for an improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection by taking proactive measures to remediate detected dangers by dropping malicious packets and blocking future traffic from the malicious source address.
The Examiner notes how a common feature of many "field of use" limitations (as well as other types of non-meaningful claim limitations) is the absence of integration of such limitations into the claim as a whole. MPEP 2106.05(h). For instance, the additional limitation in Parker v. Flook (437 US 584 (1978)) regarding the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons was not integrated into the claim because it was merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed. Id. Similarly, the additional limitation of the ML model outputting a control signal to adjust functionality of a surgical instrument is not integrated into the claim as a whole because it merely links use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea and because it is merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Id. In contrast, the additional limitations of detecting a source address associated with the malicious network packet in real time, dropping malicious network packets in real time, and blocking future traffic from the source address from claim 3 of Example 47 are integrated into the abstract idea limitations of using a trained ML model to detect anomalies in network traffic and determining that one of the anomalies is associated with a malicious packet.
Regarding Applicant's reminder regarding 35 USC 101 rejections only being made when it is more likely than not that a claim is subject-matter ineligible, the Examiner asserts that it is more likely than that the present claims are ineligible under 35 USC 101 for all of the reasons presented herein.
The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
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, 3-9, 11-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more:
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-12 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine) while claims 13 and 15-20 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, and 15-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories. 35 USC §101.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 and July 2024 updates issued by the USPTO as incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A health data system comprising:
a processor configured to:
determine that health information associated with a patient is stored in an external system, the external system being different from the health data system;
obtain, from metadata of the health information, a first consent key for accessing the health information associated with the patient, wherein the first consent key comprises a first encrypted patient identifier, and wherein the first consent key indicates an extent to which the health data system is allowed to access the health information;
send a first request to access the health information associated with the patient, wherein the request comprises the first consent key;
access the health information from the external system;
receive, from the external system, a second request to modify the health information associated with the patient stored at the health data system, wherein the second request comprises a second consent key, wherein the second consent key comprises a second encrypted patient identifier;
determine, based on the second consent key, an extent to which the external system is allowed to modify the health information;
verify that the second consent key indicates that the external system has consent from the patient to modify the health information;
allow the external system to modify the health information, based on the verification;
input the modified health information into a machine learning model;
receive, as an output of the machine learning model, an update to a treatment plan for the patient; and
output, from the machine learning model, a digital control signal to adjust functionality of a surgical instrument.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: (a) “certain
methods of organizing human activity” because they relate to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The claimed invention allows for health information of a patient to be shared
between different medical facilities upon retrieving consent “keys” and using the keys to access and modify the health information of the patient which is a method of managing interactions between people. As an example, the steps are similar to a first physician determining that a second physician associated with an external system has data of his or her patient and then getting permission from the patient to access a particular portion of the data (an extent to which the first physician is allowed to access/review the data). For instance, the first physician could review a profile (metadata) of the patient to obtain a first "consent key” such as an encrypted code that grants access to a particular portion of the health information.
Thereafter, the first physician could use the permission/consent key to access the particular data portion from the second physician (e.g., via presenting the first consent key to the second physician) and later receive a second request from the second physician to modify the patient's health information stored with the first physician. For instance, after the second physician has evaluated the patient, the second physician could decide to update the patient information on his or her end and then make a corresponding change to the patient information with the first physician. In this regard, the second request received from the second physician could include a second consent key having a second encrypted patient identifier that grants access to the second physician to modify a particular portion of the patient health information.
Thereafter, the first physician can determine and verify that the second consent key provides consent from the patient to modify the health information and then allow the second physician to modify the health information (e.g., by editing the health information based on received changes from the second physician). Finally, the first physician can input the modified health information (e.g., updated test results, new diagnoses, etc.) into any appropriate algorithm and then receive an update to a treatment plan for the patient based on an output from the algorithm (e.g., a new medication to take, a new exercise to perform, etc.). The mere nominal recitations of the health data system with processor and external system do not take the claims out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping.
Furthermore, many of the foregoing underlined limitations constitute (b) “mental processes” because they are observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 3-8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18-20, and 22 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below:
-Claims 3 and 15 call for obtaining the patient health information associated in preparation for a treatment and generating pre-treatment information based on the obtained patient health information associated with the patient that indicates patient biomarker measurements, readiness for treatment, readiness for surgery, and/or a pre-existing medical condition of the patient. These limitations just further define the sharing/modification of patient health information using consent keys which relates to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes discussed above.
-Claim 4 calls for obtaining the health information associated with the patient after the patient receives a treatment and generating progress information based on the obtained health information associated with the patient that includes patient biomarker measurements, recovery of the patient, a treatment outcome, and/or long-term outcomes for the patient. These limitations just further define the sharing/modification of patient health information using consent keys which relates to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes discussed above.
-Claim 5 calls for obtaining a dataset from a surgical instrument associated with the surgery center and involved in a surgical procedure associated with the patient and storing the dataset as part of the health information. These limitations just further define the sharing/modification of patient health information using consent keys which relates to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes discussed above.
-Claim 6 recites how health information stored in the external system is first health information, and further including receiving a third request to access second health information associated with the patient stored at the health data system, where the third request comprises a third consent key; verifying that the third consent key indicates that consent from the patient to access the second health information; and providing access to the second health information based on the verification. These limitations just further define the sharing/modification of patient health information using consent keys which relates to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes discussed above.
-Claim 7 recites how the first consent key is associated with patient consent data, and further including receiving an indication that the patient has made a change to the patient consent data; and determining, based on the change to the patient consent data, whether to continue to provide access to the second health information. These limitations just further define the sharing/modification of patient health information using consent keys which relates to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes discussed above.
-Claims 8 and 16 call for receiving a third request for the health information from a health care provider, where the third request for the health information comprises a third consent key; verifying that the third consent key indicates consent from the patient to access the health information; and providing the health information to the health care provider, based on the verification. These limitations just further define the sharing/modification of patient health information using consent keys which relates to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes discussed above.
-Claims 11 and 19 recite how the first consent key is associated with patient consent data, and further including receiving an indication that the patient has made a change to the patient consent data and determining, based on the change to the patient consent data, whether to discontinue access provided to the health information. These limitations just further define the sharing/modification of patient health information using consent keys which relates to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes discussed above.
-Claims 12 and 20 call for receiving a third request to access the health information associated with the patient, where the third request comprises a second/third consent key; verifying that the second/third consent key indicates consent from the patient to access the health information; and providing access to the health information based on the verification. These limitations just further define the sharing/modification of patient health information using consent keys which relates to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes discussed above.
-Claim 18 calls for receiving a third request to modify the health information including a third consent key, verifying that the third key indicates that the external system has consent from the patient to modify the health information, and sending an authorization message configured to allow modification of the health information. These limitations just further define the sharing/modification of patient health information using consent keys which relates to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes discussed above.
-Claim 22 calls for removing a portion of the health information from a training dataset which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A health data system comprising:
a processor configured to:
determine that health information associated with a patient is stored in an external system, the external system being different from the health data system;
obtain, from metadata of the health information, a first consent key for accessing the health information associated with the patient, wherein the first consent key comprises a first encrypted patient identifier, and wherein the first consent key indicates an extent to which the health data system is allowed to access the health information;
send a first request to access the health information associated with the patient, wherein the request comprises the first consent key;
access the health information from the external system;
receive, from the external system, a second request to modify the health information associated with the patient stored at the health data system, wherein the second request comprises a second consent key, wherein the second consent key comprises a second encrypted patient identifier;
determine, based on the second consent key, an extent to which the external system is allowed to modify the health information;
verify that the second consent key indicates that the external system has consent from the patient to modify the health information;
allow the external system to modify the health information, based on the verification;
input the modified health information into a machine learning model;
receive, as an output of the machine learning model, an update to a treatment plan for the patient; and
output, from the machine learning model, a digital control signal to adjust functionality of a surgical instrument.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the health data system including processor and the separate external system, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Specifically, these generic computer components are just surrogates for people sharing/exchanging/modifying patient information.
Regarding the additional limitation of the generic use of the ML model, the Examiner submits that this limitation amount to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This additional limitation provides only a result-oriented solution and lacks details as to how the ML model is actually trained and/or executed to determine the update to the treatment plan. Claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are not patent eligible. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), pp. 10, 14. An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment. Id. Claims that do not delineate steps through which the machine learning technology achieves an alleged improvement do not render the claims patent eligible. Id., p. 13. Allowing a claim that functionally describes a mere concept without disclosing how to implement that concept risks defeating the very purpose of the patent system. Id.
Regarding the additional limitation of outputting the digital control signal from the ML model to adjust functionality of a surgical instrument, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea and because it is merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). This additional limitation also amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 9, 13, and 17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 9, 13, and 17 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 3 and 15: These claims recite how the health data system is associated with a treatment center while the external system is associated with a PCP and thus do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 4: This claim recites how the health data system is associated with a treatment center while the external system is associated with a rehabilitation facility and thus does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 5: This claim recites how the health data system is associated with a rehabilitation facility while the external system is associated with a surgery center which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 21: This claim calls for training the ML model via unsupervised learning based at least in part on the health information which amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Requirements that the machine learning model be “iteratively trained” or dynamically adjusted do not represent a technological improvement because iterative training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), p. 12.
Claim 22: This claim calls for adjusting a parameter of the ML model based on the removal of the health information portion which amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Requirements that the machine learning model be “iteratively trained” or dynamically adjusted do not represent a technological improvement because iterative training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), p. 12.
Furthermore, the various recitations of the health data system, processor, and external systems just amount to using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Again, these generic computer components are just surrogates for people sharing/exchanging/modifying patient information.
When the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the health data system including processor and the separate external system, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Specifically, these generic computer components are just surrogates for people sharing/exchanging/modifying patient information.
Regarding the additional limitation of the generic use of the ML model, the Examiner submits that this limitation amount to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This additional limitation provides only a result-oriented solution and lacks details as to how the ML model is actually trained and/or executed to determine the update to the treatment plan. Claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are not patent eligible. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), pp. 10, 14. An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment. Id. Claims that do not delineate steps through which the machine learning technology achieves an alleged improvement do not render the claims patent eligible. Id., p. 13. Allowing a claim that functionally describes a mere concept without disclosing how to implement that concept risks defeating the very purpose of the patent system. Id.
Regarding the additional limitation of outputting the digital control signal from the ML model to adjust functionality of a surgical instrument, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea and because it is merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). This additional limitation also amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 3 and 15: These claims recite how the health data system is associated with a treatment center while the external system is associated with a PCP and thus do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 4: This claim recites how the health data system is associated with a treatment center while the external system is associated with a rehabilitation facility and thus does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 5: This claim recites how the health data system is associated with a rehabilitation facility while the external system is associated with a surgery center which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 21: This claim calls for training the ML model via unsupervised learning based at least in part on the health information which amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Requirements that the machine learning model be “iteratively trained” or dynamically adjusted do not represent a technological improvement because iterative training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), p. 12.
Claim 22: This claim calls for adjusting a parameter of the ML model based on the removal of the health information portion which amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Requirements that the machine learning model be “iteratively trained” or dynamically adjusted do not represent a technological improvement because iterative training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), p. 12.
Furthermore, the various recitations of the health data system, processor, and external systems just amount to using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Again, these generic computer components are just surrogates for people sharing/exchanging/modifying patient information.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, and 15-22 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
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, Jason Dunham, can be reached on 571-272-8109. 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.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686