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 .
Response to Amendment
The previous claim interpretation remains.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 07/17/2025, the following has occurred: claims 1, 9, 11, and 19 have been amended; claims 2-8, 10, 12-18, and 20 remain unchanged; and no new claims have been added.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 12/14/2022
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation:
The previous claim interpretation remains.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Applicant amended the claims and added the appliances are selected to treat an affected part of wounds corresponding to the wound state. Applicant states that this is an additional element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner however respectfully disagrees as the added claim language is part of the abstract idea. The recitation of “to treat an affected part of wounds corresponding to the wound states” is intended use and is not directly treating the patient. Furthermore, if this were to recite an active treatment step it would need to comply with the Vanda criteria and be a particular treatment for a particular affliction.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “a first processing engine”, “a second processing engine”, and “a third processing engine” in claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20, “an input unit” in claims 2 and 12, and “an output unit” in claims 3 and 13.
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. Paragraphs [0013] – [0014] disclose the structure for the units and the engines.
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 § 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 1-20 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. Claims 1-10 are drawn to a system and claims 11-20 are drawn to a method, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-20 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a data processing system, comprising:
a) a first database, 1) for storing a wound symptom record and a treatment record, the wound symptom record comprises a plurality of wound states, and the treatment record comprises a plurality of medical appliances corresponding to the wound states,
b) a second database, 2) for storing a plurality of product data of the medical appliances,
c) a first processing engine, 3) for fetching fields of the wound states corresponding to a plurality of wound symptoms in the wound symptom record stored in the first database, performing normalization for values of the wound states, so as to analyze a trend of each of the wound states, fetching fields of a treatment scheme, and performing normalization for values of the treatment scheme in the treatment record, and analyzing the second database to extract a plurality of featured text information from the product data,
d) a second processing engine, 4) for generating a plurality of first correlation weight values and a plurality of second correlation weight values of the wound states, the first correlation weight values indicate correlations between the wound states and the medical appliances, the second correlation weight values indicate correlations between the wound states and the featured text information,
e) a third processing engine, 5) for generating a query condition according to a target state related to a target nursing scheme and a cost of the medical appliances, 6) generating a target nursing keyword according to the query condition, and 7) selecting a plurality of recommended medical appliances from the medical appliances according to the target nursing keyword and the second correlation weight values, such that the recommended medical appliances are selected as being directed to a plurality of dressings which are applied to treat an affected part of wounds corresponding to the wound states,
wherein, the query condition is related to the trend of each of the wound states, and the target nursing keyword is a keyword of the target nursing scheme of the wound states.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) storing a wound symptom record and a treatment record, the wound symptom record comprises a plurality of wound states, and the treatment record comprises a plurality of medical appliances corresponding to the wound states, 2) storing a plurality of product data of the medical appliances, 3) fetching fields of the wound states corresponding to a plurality of wound symptoms in the wound symptom record, performing normalization for values of the wound states, so as to analyze a trend of each of the wound states, fetching fields of a treatment scheme, and performing normalization for values of the treatment scheme in the treatment record, and analyzing the second database (where the database here is not a computer and may be a collection of information on a piece of paper or mental storage) to extract a plurality of featured text information from the product data, 4) generating a plurality of first correlation weight values and a plurality of second correlation weight values of the wound states, the first correlation weight values indicate correlations between the wound states and the medical appliances, the second correlation weight values indicate correlations between the wound states and the featured text information, 5) generating a query condition according to a target state related to a target nursing scheme and a cost of the medical appliances, 6) generating a target nursing keyword according to the query condition, and 7) selecting a plurality of recommended medical appliances from the medical appliances according to the target nursing keyword and the second correlation weight values, such that the recommended medical appliances are selected as being directed to a plurality of dressings which are applied to treat an affected part of wounds corresponding to the wound states, wherein, the query condition is related to the trend of each of the wound states, and the target nursing keyword is a keyword of the target nursing scheme of the wound states. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes determining a treatment based on a desired target state. Independent claim 11 recites similar limitations and is also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 2-9 and 12-20 include all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 2 and 12 add the additional step of “an input unit, for inputting the target state, wherein, the third processing engine fetches fields corresponding to the wound states from the wound symptom record in the first database according to the target state”; claims 3 and 13 add the additional step of “an output unit, for outputting product names of the recommended medical appliances, wherein, the recommended medical appliances conform to the target nursing scheme and the query condition”; claims 4 and 14 add the additional steps of “the first processing engine analyzes a normalized value of each of the wound states according to the wound symptom record”, “calculates a usage frequency of the medical appliances from the treatment record”, and “the second processing engine obtains the first correlation weight values according to the normalized value of each of the wound states and the usage frequency of the medical appliances”; claims 5 and 15 add the additional steps of “the first processing engine calculates an occurrence number of the featured text information of the medical appliances” and “the second processing engine obtains the second correlation weight values according to the first correlation weight values and the occurrence number of the corresponding featured text information of the medical appliances”; claims 6 and 16 adds the additional steps of “wherein, the third processing engine analyzes the second correlation weight values of the wound states corresponding to the target nursing keyword”, “selects the featured text information with higher values corresponding to the second correlation weight values”, “calculating scores of the medical appliances according to the occurrence number of the featured text information”, and “selects the medical appliances with higher scores as the recommended medical appliances”; and claims 10 and 20 adds the additional step of “wherein, the first processing engine classifies the featured text information according to a plurality of classification attributes, and the classification attributes at least comprise brands, materials and functions of the medical appliances”. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 7-9 and 17-19 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 2-9 and 12-20 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 11 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using 1) a first database, 2) a second database, 3) a first processing engine, 4) a second processing engine, 5) a third processing engine, 6) an input unit, and 7) an output unit to perform the claimed steps.
The 1) first database, 2) second database, 3) first processing engine, 4) second processing engine, and 5) third processing engine in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0014] where the engines are generic processors and paragraph [0013] where the databases are generic, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the 6) an input unit and 7) an output unit in these steps adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of an input unit amounts to mere data gathering and recitation of an output unit amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using 1) a first database, 2) a second database, 3) a first processing engine, 4) a second processing engine, 5) a third processing engine, 6) an input unit, and 7) an output unit to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity) and or mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention selects recommended medical appliances utilizing 1) a first database, 2) a second database, 3) a first processing engine, 4) a second processing engine, and 5) a third processing engine, thus these computing components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, the 6) an input unit and 7) an output unit in these steps add insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives input data from an input unit, and transmits output data to an output unit over a network, for example the Internet.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components or insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
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 Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684