DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 5/21/25. Claims 1-7, 9, and 20-21 are pending.
Drawings
The replacement drawings for Fig. 1, 3-4, and 8 were received on 9/11/25. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-7, 9, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 20 have been amended to recite: “applying a deep learning model to the plurality of concatenated vectors to determine the probability that each member-healthcare facility pair will be selected for the particular medical procedure, the deep learning model having been trained using labeled member-healthcare-facility pairs derived from historical claims data, assigning a positive label where a member previously visited the facility and a negative label where the member did not, and updating model weights by minimizing a loss function.”
It is unclear how the phrases assigning and updating phrases (e.g. “assigning a positive label where a member previously visited the facility and a negative label where the member did not, and updating model weights by minimizing a loss function”) is intended to modify the rest of the claim. More specifically, it is unclear whether the assigning and updating language further defines the how the deep learning model is trained (i.e. “deep learning model having been trained using…); if they are steps performed as a result of the deep learning model being applied to the concatenated vectors, or whether they are additional steps that are performed after the deep model is applied (i.e. steps “d” and “e” in claim 1; steps “i” and “j” in claim 20)
It should also be noted that as drafted, the language regarding how the model “has been trained” lies beyond the scope of the claimed invention, and does not receive patentable weight. In other words, as drafted, the steps for training the deep learning model are not actively recited as steps performed by the claimed system.
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 1-7, 9, and 20-21 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.
35 USC 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. As explained by the courts, these “four categories together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of Section 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Applicant’s claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 1-20 are drawn to systems.
Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not complete the eligibility analysis. Claims drawn only to an abstract idea, a natural phenomenon, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection. As described in MPEP 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l,134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
In 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) prepared revised guidance (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility. The framework for this revised guidance, which sets forth the procedures for determining whether a patent claim or patent application claim is directed to a judicial exception (laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas), is described in MPEP sections 2106.03 and 2106.04.
As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance explains that abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. Moreover, this guidance explains that a patent claim or patent application claim that recites a judicial exception is not ‘‘directed to’’ the judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception. A claim that recites a judicial exception, but is not integrated into a practical application, is directed to the judicial exception under Step 2A and must then be evaluated under Step 2B (inventive concept) to determine the subject matter eligibility of the claim.
Step 2A asks: Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? If so, is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception? A claim recites a judicial exception when a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms “set forth” and “describe” are thus both equated with “recite”, their different language is intended to indicate that there are different ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr set forth a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, while the claims in Mayo set forth laws of nature in the wherein clause, meaning that the claims in those cases contained discrete claim language that was identifiable as a judicial exception. The claims in Alice Corp., however, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words “intermediated” or “settlement.” A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
In the instant case, claims 1-7, 9, and 20-21 recite(s) an abstract idea. More specifically claims 1 is drawn to mathematical concepts/relationships and certain methods of organizing human activities, as they recite:
extracting a heterogeneous graph from the historical claims data, (the graph
comprised of at least two types of nodes, a member node and healthcare facility node, a plurality of edges each representing a positive class, and a plurality of edges each representing a negative class, wherein each edge representing a positive class connects one member node to one healthcare facility node that the one member has a previous connection or visit with and wherein each edge representing a negative class connects one member node to one healthcare facility node that the one member does not have a previous connection or visit with) (mathematical concepts);
embedding the heterogeneous graph to generate a vector for each member node and healthcare facility node, including a member node vector for each member node and a healthcare facility node vector for each healthcare facility node, by sampling a neighborhood for each member node and healthcare facility node and aggregating node-feature information from the sampled neighborhood to update each member node vector and each healthcare facility node vector (mathematical concepts)
concatenating a plurality of vectors, each concatenated vector
comprised of a first member node vector and a first healthcare facility node vector…, wherein each of the plurality of concatenated vectors represents a member-healthcare facility pair: (mathematical concepts);
applying a deep learning model to the plurality of concatenated vectors to determine the probability that each member-healthcare facility pair will be selected for the particular medical procedure, the deep learning model having been trained using labeled member-healthcare-facility pairs derived from historical claims data, assigning a positive label where a member previously visited the facility and a negative label where the member did not, and updating model weights by minimizing a loss function;; (mathematical concepts); and
Claim 20 is drawn to systems for certain methods of organizing human activities (CMOHA) (i.e. fundamental economic practices/ actuarial insurance analysis; commercial interactions (i.e. legal obligations, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) and mathematical relationships, which is subject matter that falls within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas described in MPEP 2106.04 (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). More specifically, claim 20 recites a system for developing a model and graph to analyze medical claim data to determine a likelihood that a member/patient will select a healthcare facility for a particular medical procedure.
More specifically, claim 20 recites a system for:
assigning all available healthcare facilities to each member; (CMOHA)
determining a distance between each member location and each healthcare facility location; (CMOHA)
grouping each distance between each member location and each healthcare facility location into a predetermined number of categories based on the determined distance; (CMOHA)
extracting a heterogeneous graph from the historical claims data, the graph comprised of at least two types of nodes, a member node and healthcare facility node, a heterogeneous plurality of edges each representing a positive class, and a plurality of edges each representing a negative class, wherein each edge representing a positive class connects one member node to one healthcare facility node that the one member has a previous connection or visit with and wherein each edge representing a negative class connects one member node to one healthcare facility node that the one member does not have a previous connection or visit with; (mathematical relationships)
matching each edge representing a positive class with one randomly selected edge representing a negative class from each of the categories; and (CMOHA)
preparing the graph for modeling; (mathematical relationships);
embedding the heterogeneous graph to generate a vector for each member node and healthcare facility node, including a member node vector for each member node and a healthcare facility node vector for each healthcare facility node, by sampling a neighborhood for each member node and healthcare facility node and aggregating node-feature information from the neighborhood to update each member node vector and each healthcare facility node vector; (mathematical relationships)
concatenating a plurality of vectors, each concatenated vector comprised of a first member node vector and a first healthcare facility node vector obtained…, wherein each of the plurality of concatenated vectors represents a member-healthcare facility pair;. (mathematical relationships);
applying a deep learning model to the plurality of concatenated vectors to determine the probability that each member-healthcare facility pair will be selected for the particular medical procedure, the deep learning model having been trained using labeled member-healthcare-facility pairs derived from historical claims data, assigning a positive label where a member previously visited the facility and a negative label where the member did not, and updating model weights by minimizing a loss function (mathematical relationships);
Claim 20 further includes a first model used to score the likelihood that each member would receive the particular medical procedure at the particular type of healthcare facility before determining the probability that each member-healthcare facility pair will be selected for the particular medical procedure. (mathematical relationship)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim language does not recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); see also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I-II)). Moreover, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claimed invention does not: apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); or apply or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment see MPEP 2106.05(e). (Considerations for integration into a practical application in Step 2A, prong two and for recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception in Step 2B)
While abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patenting by themselves, claims that integrate these exceptions into an inventive concept are thereby transformed into patent-eligible inventions. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (2012)). Thus, the second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Id. An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute Sections 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under Section 101”). As made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the Section 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp.,838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9).
As described in MPEP 2106.05, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)). Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Claims 1 and 20 have been amended to further recite: “populating the second region with the highest probabilities for performing the particular medical procedure based on an entered zipcode” This step is interpreted as a displaying or outputting data, and therefore the additional step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Examples of insignificant extra-solution activity include mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and insignificant application. In the instant case the additional steps amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering)
Claims 1, and 20 additionally recite a database; a computer processor; and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions; and a graphical user interface (i.e. a GUI comprised of a first region for entering a zip code, and a second region for listing recommended healthcare facilities for performing the particular medical procedure based on the entered zipcode) Claim 9 also recites graphical user interface. However, the additional components is/are generic components that perform generic computer functions activities that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The generic nature of the computer system used to carryout steps of the recited method is underscored by the system description in the instant application, which discloses: “It is to be understood that other embodiments may be used having mechanical and electrical changes that incorporate the scope of the present invention without departing from the spirit of the invention" (par. 39) The disclosure also states: “The output of the present invention can be displayed at a graphical user interface comprised of a first region for entering a zip code for a particular patient or member, and a second region for listing recommended healthcare facilities for performing the particular medical procedure.” (par. 27) Applicant’s disclosure only briefly describes the structural system components used to execute the claimed method. Such language underscores that the applicant's perceived invention/ novelty focuses on the computerized implementation of the abstract idea, not the underlying structure of the additional (generic) components.
Moreover, the courts have recognized certain computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)). These include:
- 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));
- Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
- Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
- Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and
Claims 3-4 recite additional limitations which further define the abstract idea, but fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea as explained in the rejection of claim 1. Claim(s) 3-4 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2, and 5-7 recite additional limitations which further define the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, or recite insignificant extra-solution activities. However, the additional limitations of the claims 2, and 5-7 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim(s) 2, and 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 21 recites additional limitations which further define the abstract idea, but fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea as explained in the rejection of claim 20. Claim(s) 21 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Because Applicant’s claimed invention recites a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, the claimed invention is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant explains that the changes made to the drawings in the replacement drawing. The new drawings have been acknowledged and are accepted.
(B) The provisional double patenting rejection has been withdrawn in light of the terminal disclaimer filed 9/22/25.
(C) Applicant argues that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101. Applicant further argues that the newly added claim language should render the claims patent eligible.
In response, the examiner disagrees that the recited invention recites an improvement to technology or a technical field. The cited passages of the specification are noted. However, the purported improvements are improvements to the abstract ideas: certain methods of organizing human activities and mathematical relationships.
The additional language regarding the step of “embedding the heterogenous graph to generate a vector graph…” is noted. However, as indicated in the updated rejection, the newly added language further defines the judicial exception. (i.e. further recites mathematical relationships.)
It is further noted that the amended claim language uses intended use language to suggest generating the vectors “embedding to generate a vector for each member node and healthcare facility node, including a member node vector for each member node and a healthcare facility node vector for each healthcare facility node, by sampling a neighborhood for each member node and healthcare facility node and aggregating node-feature information from the sampled neighborhood to update each member node vector and each healthcare facility node vector.”
Similarly, claims 1 and 20 have been amended to delete the active step of “determining the probability…” and now recites “applying a deep learning model to the plurality of concatenated vectors to determine the probability that each member-healthcare facility pair will be selected for the particular medical procedure, the deep learning model having been trained using labeled member-healthcare-facility pairs derived from historical claims data, assigning a positive label where a member previously visited the facility and a negative label where the member did not, and updating model weights by minimizing a loss function.”
Also the claims now recite “populating the second region with the recommended healthcare facilities with the highest probabilities for performing the particular medical procedure based on an entered zipcode for the patient or member.”
Applicant argues that the recited limitation is not an insignificant extra-solution activity. However, the step of “populating” data in a data field of a GUI is interpreted as an output/display step. (See par. 27-28 of the disclosure) Therefore, while generating the recommendation(s) is part of the abstract idea, the mere display or output of the recommendations is insignificant post solution activity.
(D) Applicant argues that the claims recite an improvement to technology or a technical field, and that any abstract idea has been integrated into a practical application.
In response, the examiner disagrees that the recited invention recites an improvement to technology or a technical field, and maintains that the argued improvements are improvements to the abstract ideas.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim language does not recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); see also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I-II)). Moreover, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claimed invention does not: apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); or apply or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment see MPEP 2106.05(e). (Considerations for integration into a practical application in Step 2A, prong two and for recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception in Step 2B)
The claims recite a series of steps including extracting graphing data, adding/merging vectors, applying deep learning models to vectors, and calculating a probability of an event. As such, the claims recite mathematical relationships and mathematical concepts. Claims 1 and 20 recite a method and system for analyzing medical claim data to determine a likelihood that a member/patient will select a healthcare facility for a particular medical procedure. Claims 4 and 20 additionally recite, the steps include a. assigning all available healthcare facilities to each member; b. determining a distance between each member location and each healthcare facility location; c. grouping each distance between each member location and each healthcare facility location into a predetermined number of categories based on the determined distance. As such, the claims also recite certain methods of organizing human activity ( i.e. fundamental economic practices/ actuarial insurance analysis; commercial interactions (i.e. legal obligations, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations)).
In other words, the invention is drawn using mathematical constructs to analyze relationships among entities and to develop models that determine healthcare outcomes or recommendations. (See par. 3- Building the connection between these entities will play a significant role in lowering down data storage and organization efforts and shedding light in providing better answers for solving healthcare related questions or problems; See also par. 7: The particulars of the embedding process has a significant impact on the performance of the model for future analysis and tasks, and it is important for a quality model to be developed that reflects the accuracy of the data and relationships.)
(E ) Applicant further argues that the pending claims at-issue are analogous to McRO and example 40, because the pending claims recite specific rules and details to accomplish the solution or improvement (as opposed to generic abstract concepts without any detail).
In response, the Examiner disagrees. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.
In McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The claim(s) must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). The full scope of the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). (See MPEP 2106(a))
In the instant case, Applicant’s claims and specification fail to explain the improvement over the previous technology. Instead, the claims recite an improvement to the abstract ideas. (i.e. building a better mathematical model to perform more accurate mathematical calculations/ probability determination).
(F) Applicant argues that the recited invention is not abstract because it transforms the data into a heterogeneous graph from the unstructured data and ultimately to embedded vectors which is also another factor that should be considered.
In response, one consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. "[T]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines." Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 658, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972)). If such a transformation exists, the claims are likely to be significantly more than any recited judicial exception or to integrate any recited judicial exception into a practical application.
An "article" includes a physical object or substance. The physical object or substance must be particular, meaning it can be specifically identified. "Transformation" of an article means that the "article" has changed to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which thoughts or human based actions are "changed" are not considered an eligible transformation. For data, mere "manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’" has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). (Emphasis added).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Englehart et al ( US 20230395211 A1)- discloses a method for prioritized updating of a node graph data structure.
Vijendra et al (US 9792658 B1)- discloses a method for capturing development and behavior of a social healthcare network in nodes and relationships of a social dataset, determining a sub-set of the social dataset for analysis, and performing an analysis on the sub-set.
Blalock et al ( US 20200357507 A1)- discloses a system and method for generating and presenting graph data structures representing patient visit paths and physician referral networks.
Bulu et al ( US 20230085697 A1) discloses a system which generates a graph-based data object based at least in part on a plurality of natural language data objects and performs one or more prediction-based actions based at least in part on the graph-based data object.
Soltani et al (US 20230178199 A1) disclose a system for using hierarchical vectorisation for representation of healthcare data.
Kloke et al (US 20160350389 A1) discloses a system for generating a graph and for grouping of data points for data analysis and more particularly to generating a graph utilizing improved groupings of data points based on scores of the groupings. Kloke also discloses a GUI to allow the user to make selections, enter information (e.g., fields, metrics, and filters), provide parameters (e.g., resolution), and provide data (e.g., identify the database) to be used with analysis (Fig. 5)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Rachel L Porter whose telephone number is (571)272-6775. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6:30.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 571-270-1360. 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.
/Rachel L. Porter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684