DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Remarks
This action is in response to the remarks filed 02/02/2026.
Claims 17-32 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pages 8-9, filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection of claims 17-32 under 35 U.S.C. 101
Independent claim 17 has been amended to include the method being “monitoring a patient from continuous data streams indicative of the patient’s physiological condition” and “continue displaying an instantaneous measurement of the health indices in real time based on the updated health indices”. Independent claim 25 has been amended similarly. Applicant argues that the amended claims are not directed to a mental process, and points to Ex parte Desjarins. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The argument that the claims do not recite a mental process is not persuasive. Applicant argues that the recited features cannot be performed mentally because the data is processed and updated in real time. However, this is not persuasive. The claimed features include the steps of:
Generating a present health index,
Updating a set of health indices to include the present health index,
Displaying the health indices as a trend line,
Displaying indicator pairs on the trend line, where each indicator pair is associated with a different blood test,
Updating some of the health indices, wherein the updating is performed by applying a model trend line, and
Updating the display to modify the health index trend line based on the updated health indices.
These are all steps that can be performed using generic computer components. For example, updating a patient monitor display in the context of this claim encompasses a user generating a present health index, updating a set of health indices to include the present health index, displaying the health indices as a trend line, displaying indicator pairs on the trend line, where each indicator pair is associated with a different blood test, updating some of the health indices, wherein the updating is performed by applying a model trend line, and modifying the health index trend line based on the updates.
Applicant then argues the argument from Desjardin that software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology. However, here, the claimed technical improvement is in the abstract idea itself. In the instant claims, as explained above, the data analysis is performed to update a display, which is an extra-solution activity (i.e. see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, there is no further description, in the claims or the specification, of any particular technology for performing the steps recited in the claim other than generic computer components used in their ordinary capacity as tools to apply the abstract idea. Nor does the claimed invention use a particular, or special, machine. In other words, the claims “are not tied to any particular novel machine or apparatus” capable of rescuing them from the realm of an abstract idea. Further, these components are being used to perform the extra-solution activity of data gathering, analysis, and displaying (i.e. an insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 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 17-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method and system for monitoring a patient. To determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility, the claim is evaluated according to a stepwise process as described in MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.03-2106.04. The instant claims are evaluated according to such analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 17 is directed towards a method, and claim 25 is directed towards a system, and thus meet the requirements for step 1.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claim 17 is directed towards a method, and claim 25 is directed towards a system for monitoring a patient, comprising generating a present health index, updating a set of health indices to include the present health index, displaying the health indices as a trend line, displaying indicator pairs on the trend line, where each indicator pair is associated with a different blood test, updating some of the health indices, wherein the updating is performed by applying a model trend line, and updating the display to modify the health index trend line based on the updated health indices. The limitation of updating a patient monitor display, as drafted in claims 17-32, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper or generic computer components.
For example, updating a patient monitor display in the context of this claim encompasses a user generating a present health index, updating a set of health indices to include the present health index, displaying the health indices as a trend line, displaying indicator pairs on the trend line, where each indicator pair is associated with a different blood test, updating some of the health indices, wherein the updating is performed by applying a model trend line, and modifying the health index trend line based on the updates.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The steps of generating a present health index and updating a set of health indices to include the present health index are considered to be a mere data gathering step (i.e. an insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2016.05(g)), the step of updating some of the health indices, wherein the updating is performed by applying a model trend line is considered to be a data analysis step, and the steps of d displaying the health indices as a trend line, displaying indicator pairs on the trend line, where each indicator pair is associated with a different blood test, and updating the display to modify the health index trend line based on the updated health indices are considered to be a data output step (i.e. an insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2016.05(g)).
The additional element of using a model to update the health indices is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic model to perform the step of data analysis) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, these additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional element when considered individually and in combination is not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a using a model to synchronize the health indices with the test results amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic data analysis model. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the additional element does not amount to more than generically linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 18-24 and 26-32 depend on claims 17 and 25 and recite the same abstract idea as claims 17 and 25 from which they depend. Further, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process). For example, the additional limitations of claims 18 and 26 (i.e. including or excluding parameters and updating the health index) is considered to be further data gathering and analysis. The additional limitation of claims 19 and 27 (i.e. identifying an increased risk and providing treatment) is a further data analysis and output step. Further, the limitation of providing treatment is broadly claimed, and can include a doctor providing any type of treatment. The limitation of claims 20-22 and 28-30 (i.e. providing additional details about what the model includes) is a further data gathering step. The limitation of claims 23 and 31 (i.e. providing more details about the updating of health indices) is a further data analysis step. The limitation of claims 24 and 32 (i.e. explaining what parameters are included) is a data gathering step. The additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception explained above (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves any technology or includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provides a conventional computer implementation, i.e. the computer (processor) is simply a tool to perform the claimed invention.
While there are no prior art rejections for claims 17-32, they are not indicated as allowable due to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as explained above.
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 SHREYA P ANJARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-9083. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/SHREYA ANJARIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights