DETAILED ACTION
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment(s) filed on 3/17/26, amended claim(s) 1 is/are acknowledged. The following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth:
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “change of ,movement” (line 13) appears that it should be “change of movement.”
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the predetermined type” (line 11) appears that it should be “one or more predetermined types.”
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “extreme values of a normally distributed motion pattern” (line 12-13) appears that it should be “extreme values of a normally distributed motion pattern.”
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a ratio of an ascending slope of at least a part of movement to a descending slope of at least a part of movement's” (lines 8-10) appears that it should be “a ratio of an ascending slope of at least a part of a movement to a descending slope of at least a part of a movement.”
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “similarity of velocity derivatives changes across the time segment” (lines 11-12) appears that it should be “similarity of velocity derivate changes across the time segment.”
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “to movement kinematics maximum” (line 8) appears that it should be “to a movement kinematics maximum.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “data input and output utilities,” in claim 1, which has no corresponding structure; and “analyzer,” in claim 1, which has no corresponding structure; “sensing data analyzer,” in claim 9, which has no corresponding structure; “error identifier utility,” in claim 9, which has no corresponding structure; and “detector utility,” in claim 15, which has no corresponding structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18, 20, 23, 26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For claim 1, the claim language “data input and output utilities” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, there is a lack of evidence that Applicant possessed the structure required for the claimed subject matter since the corresponding structure is not described in the filed specification. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant’s assistance in determining where support may be found or have the subject matter deleted from the claim(s).
For claim 1, the claim language “analyzer” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, there is a lack of evidence that Applicant possessed the structure required for the claimed subject matter since the corresponding structure is not described in the filed specification. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant’s assistance in determining where support may be found or have the subject matter deleted from the claim(s).
For claim 1, the claim language “process said input data by applying thereto at least one machine learning model, trained on one or more types of sensing data and individual’s activities … and generate output data indicative of a cognitive error detection by the individual’s brain characterizing a cognitive operational state of the individual during said activity” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of outputting data indicative of a cognitive error detection by said individual in said activity characterizing a cognitive operational state of the individual during said activity, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. The term “machine learning algorithm” is treated as a black box and the specification does not describe the specifics of how to achieve the above-recited function(s) with this algorithm. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 1, the claim language “identify a motion pattern indicative of motion command data characterizing the reaction of the individual to his/her own errors being thereby cognitively recognizable by the individual’s brain as error/related movements in said activity” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of identifying a motion pattern indicative of motion command data characterizing the reaction of the individual to his/her own errors being thereby cognitively recognizable by the individual’s brain as error/related movements in said activity, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 9, the claim language “sensing data analyzer” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, there is a lack of evidence that Applicant possessed the structure required for the claimed subject matter since the corresponding structure is not described in the filed specification. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant’s assistance in determining where support may be found or have the subject matter deleted from the claim(s).
For claim 9, the claim language “error identifier utility” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, there is a lack of evidence that Applicant possessed the structure required for the claimed subject matter since the corresponding structure is not described in the filed specification. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant’s assistance in determining where support may be found or have the subject matter deleted from the claim(s).
For claim 9, the claim language “an error identifier utility configured and operable to identify at least one predetermined segment in the goal directed movement pattern” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of identifying at least one predetermined segment in the goal directed movement pattern, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. Claim 10 seems to identify that this is done by machine learning, but the examiner still could not find the algorithm from the machine learning that provides evidence that Applicant had possession of this claimed subject matter. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 10, the claim language “the error identifier utility is configured and operable to apply said at least one machine learning model to the goal directed movement pattern to identify said at least one predetermined segment and lock a search on said at least one predetermined segment for one or more characteristic features with respect to the activity being performed by the individual and the one or more predetermined types of sensors providing the sensing data” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of identifying said at least one predetermined segment and lock a search on said at least one predetermined segment for one or more characteristic features with respect to the activity being performed by the individual and the one or more predetermined types of sensors providing the sensing data, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. The term “machine learning algorithm” is treated as a black box and the specification does not describe the specifics of how to achieve the above-recited function(s) with this algorithm. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 10, the claim language “the error identifier utility is configured and operable to apply machine learning based processing to the goal directed movement pattern associated with said certain individual's activity and being collected over time by the sensor of the predetermined type” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The term “machine learning algorithm” is treated as a black box and the specification does not describe the specifics of how to achieve the above-recited function(s) with this algorithm. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 12, the claim language “wherein the error identifier utility is configured and operable to apply machine learning based processing to the goal directed movement pattern associated with said certain individual's activity and being collected over time by the sensor of the predetermined type by carrying out one of the following: (1) sorting movements forming said motion pattern into correct movements and incorrect movements; identifying differences in features of the correct movements and the incorrect movements to define one or more characteristic feature uniquely characterizing errors; and determining a change in said one or more characteristic features resulting from a change in the individual's cognitive operational state, in association with each of one or more factors affecting the cognitive operational state of the individual; and (2) identifying in said motion pattern movements having different features; selecting one or more characteristic features from the movement located at extreme values of normally distributed motion pattern; and determining a change in said one or more characteristic features resulting from a change in the individual's cognitive operational state, in association with each of one or more factors affecting the cognitive operational state of the individual” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The term “machine learning algorithm” is treated as a black box and the specification does not describe the specifics of how to achieve the above-recited function(s) with this algorithm. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 14, the claim language “wherein the error identifier utility is configured and operable to apply said at least one machine learning model to the goal directed movement pattern to identify said at least one predetermined segment and lock a search on said at least one predetermined segment for one or more characteristic features with respect to the activity being performed by the individual and the one or more predetermined types of sensors providing the sensing data” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of identifying said at least one predetermined segment and lock a search on said at least one predetermined segment for one or more characteristic features with respect to the activity being performed by the individual and the one or more predetermined types of sensors providing the sensing data, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. The term “machine learning algorithm” is treated as a black box and the specification does not describe the specifics of how to achieve the above-recited function(s) with this algorithm. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 15, the claim language “detector utility” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, there is a lack of evidence that Applicant possessed the structure required for the claimed subject matter since the corresponding structure is not described in the filed specification. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant’s assistance in determining where support may be found or have the subject matter deleted from the claim(s).
Dependent claim(s) 2-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18, 20, 23, 26, and 28 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1, thus claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18, 20, 23, 26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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(s) 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18, 20, 23, 26, and 28 is/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.
For claim 1, the claim language “data input and output utilities” is ambiguous. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, the metes and bonds of the claim language cannot be ascertained since the structure that defines the limits of those boundaries is absent. The claim is examined as meaning any structure capable of inputting data and outputting data.
For claim 1, the claim language “analyzer” is ambiguous. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, the metes and bonds of the claim language cannot be ascertained since the structure that defines the limits of those boundaries is absent. The claim is examined as meaning any structure capable of analyzing.
For claim 1, the claim language “identify a motion pattern indicative of motion command data characterizing the reaction of the individual to his/her own errors being thereby cognitively recognizable by the individual’s brain as error-related movements in said activity” is ambiguous. The phrase appears to be a run-on phrase and grammatically incorrect and therefore it is difficult to ascertain what limitations are intended to limit what recited subject matter.
For claim 9, the claim language “sensing data analyzer” is ambiguous. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, the metes and bonds of the claim language cannot be ascertained since the structure that defines the limits of those boundaries is absent. The claim is examined as meaning any structure capable of analyzing sensed data.
For claim 3, the claim term “the individual's brain” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 7, the claim term “the individual's brain” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 9, the claim language “error identifier utility” is ambiguous. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, the metes and bonds of the claim language cannot be ascertained since the structure that defines the limits of those boundaries is absent. The claim is examined as meaning any structure capable of identifying an error.
For claim 9, the claim language “upon identifying in said at least one predetermined segment motion profile indicative of movements cognitively recognizable by the individual as error-related movements, generating output data indicative of error-related motion pattern enabling evaluation of the operational state of the individual” is ambiguous. The phrase appears to be a run-on phrase and grammatically incorrect and therefore it is difficult to ascertain what limitations are intended to limit what recited subject matter.
For claim 9, the claim term “said at least one predetermined segment motion profile” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this referred back to the “at least one predetermined segment.”
For claim 10, the claim term “the at least one predetermined segment of the motion pattern” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this referred back to the “at least one predetermined segment” in claim 9.
For claim 10, the claim term “the decision” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 12, the claim language “identifying in said motion pattern movements having different features” is ambiguous. This is an incomplete clause and appears that it should mean identifying different features in said motion pattern movements.
For claim 12, the claim language “the movement located at extreme values of a normally distributed motion pattern” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 14, the claim term “the time segment” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 14, the claim term “the kinematic change of movement” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 15, the claim language “detector utility” is ambiguous. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, the metes and bonds of the claim language cannot be ascertained since the structure that defines the limits of those boundaries is absent. The claim is examined as meaning any structure capable of detecting.
For claim 15, the claim term “the individual's brain” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 16, the claim term “the individual's brain” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 18, the claim language “the movement kinematics” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as finding antecedence in “movement kinematic data.”
For claim 20, the claim term “the motion pattern of executed command” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 20, the claim term “the individual's brain” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
Dependent claim(s) 2-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18, 20, 23, 26, and 28 fail to cure the ambiguity of independent claim 1, thus claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18, 20, 23, 26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18, 20, 23, 26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 1 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “be responsive to input data comprising sensing data collected over time during said individual’s activity from at least a part of individual's body by one or more sensors of predetermined one or more types and being indicative of a motion pattern originated at said at least a part of the individual’s body and characterizing said activity of the individual, to process said input data by applying thereto at least one machine learning model, trained on one or more types of sensing data and individual’s activities, to identify a motion pattern indicative of motion command data characterizing the reaction of the individual to his/her own errors being thereby cognitively recognizable by the individual’s brain as error-related movements in said activity, and generate output data indicative of a cognitive error detection by the individual’s brain characterizing a cognitive operational state of the individual during said activity.” It is noted that that the scope of the claim term “machine learning model” includes algorithm(s). This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is, there appears to be no tangible improvement in a technology, effect of a particular treatment or prophylaxis, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated, or transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing as a result of this claimed subject matter. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “data input and output utilities,” “a memory,” “a data processor” and “analyzer.” However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they all cover generic computer structures, which has been held to not be significantly more according to Alice v. CLS Bank and Bilski v. Kappos. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 2-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18, 20, 23, and 26 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas, further limitations on abstract ideas already recited, and/or additional generic computer structure that is not considered to be “significantly more.” Dependent claim 28 fails to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 because the recited subject matter is not significantly more because it is well-known, routine, and conventional as evidenced by para [0041] of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0344090 to Sullivan et al. (hereinafter “Sullivan”). Thus, claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18, 20, 23, 26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/17/26 have been fully considered. In response, it is first noted that only claim 1 was amended. Therefore, any arguments that amendments to dependent claims overcome the rejection(s) is moot. The arguments will be treated in the order they were presented. With respect to the 112 invocations, the claimed “monitoring system” comprises the “computer system,” no the utilities and the analyzer. Therefore, those other claim terms needs to have sufficient structure. With respect to the 112 rejections, what the model is trained on and to do is not descriptive of the architecture of the model. The rejection gives some exemplary questions that would help describe the architecture, but those questions are not all answered by what the model is trained to do. With respect to the 101 rejection(s), the timescales and granularity are not recited in the claim(s). Therefore, the claim language is still broad enough, under broadest, reasonable interpretation, to read on what can be performed by the human mind. Additionally, detecting a concrete physical mechanism is not a practical application as it is not a treatment or prophylaxis, improvement in a technology, specific machine, or transformation of matter from one state to another. Moreover, the machine leaning model is not significantly more because it is not an additional element, it is considered under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework.
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 DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791