CTFR 18/089,574 CTFR 80263 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Amendment filed on March 27, 2026. Claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 1, 6 and 7 are amended. Response to Arguments Referring to the objections to claims 1 and 6, Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged. As such, the objections to the aforenoted claims are withdrawn. Referring to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-7, Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged. As such, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of the aforenoted claims is withdrawn. Referring to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-7, as amended, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims, as amended do not recite mental steps, specifically in the recitation of the determination process and the changing process being alternately iterated wherein each subsequent iteration operates on the updated subject attribute dataset. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. A person can iteratively alternate between the mental steps of determining data values such as the change-target item value and a changing direction for the change-target item value. A person can perform these steps with each iteration based on data within an updated dataset. Using the data from the dataset is merely using the dataset as the source from which the data is retrieved for the steps to be carried out. As such, Examiner maintains that the claims recite mental steps. Applicant argues that the determination steps in the claims, as amended, provide the technological improvement of making practical recommendations of changes in item values because the movement passes through the area where the attribute datasets are clustered. However, Examiner submits that the determination steps are mental steps. Furthermore, a user can look at a display of how datasets are clustered before making this determination mentally. As such, Examiner maintains that the claims, as amended, do not recite a technological improvement. Applicant argues that the claims as amended define a particular solution to the identified problem of unrealistic recommendations and the iterative distribution based determination process ensures that changes follow feasible paths through dimension space and are used to display actionable health improvement recommendation for the user. However, Examiner maintains that the determination steps in the claims are mental steps that a user can perform by looking at a display of how datasets are clustered before making this determination. Furthermore, the display of a health recommendation is also a mental step wherein a user can write down a recommended course of action to improve a user’s health condition much like a doctor would write out or print a diagnosis to a patient based on accessing statistical data related to the patient’s health condition. As such, Examiner maintains that the claims do not recite a practical application. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-7 is maintained for at least the reasons stated above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 6 and 7 recite: obtaining a plurality of attribute datasets including a subject attribute dataset of a user and information indicating an area range that is taken as a target in a dimensional space, the plurality of attribute datasets each being a combination of a plurality of item values related to health conditions of a patient; performing a determination process of determining a change-target item value to be changed from among the plurality of item values of the subject attribute dataset and a changing direction for the change-target item value, based on a distribution of the subject attribute dataset and at least some of the plurality of attribute datasets in the dimensional space; obtaining information indicating a result of changes made by alternately iterating a changing process of changing the change-target item value by a predetermined amount or more, based on the changing direction and the determination process until the subject attribute dataset is within the area range, wherein the determination process includes determining the change-target item value to be changed in a next iteration of the changing process and the changing direction of the next iteration of the changing process, based on a distribution of the subject attribute dataset of which the change-target item value has been changed and at least some of the plurality of attribute datasets in the dimensional space; generating, based on the information indicating the result of changes made by the alternately iterating, an improvement recommendation for the user to be healthy, the improvement recommendation including an improvement action of changing an appropriate item value for improving health among the plurality of item values related to the health conditions; and displaying the improvement recommendation. Step 1 : The claims as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories. Step 2A prong 1 : At least claims 1, 6 and 7 recite limitations that are abstract ideas. The limitations “ performing a determination process of determining a change-target item value to be changed from among the plurality of item values of the subject attribute dataset and a changing direction for the change-target item value, based on a distribution of the subject attribute dataset and at least some of the plurality of attribute datasets in the dimensional space”, “wherein the determination process includes determining the change-target item value to be changed in a next iteration of the changing process and the changing direction of the next iteration of the changing process, based on a distribution of the subject attribute dataset of which the change-target item value has been changed and at least some of the plurality of attribute datasets in the dimensional space” are mental steps. One can mentally determine values of a dataset that are to be changed and a changing direction for those values (e.g. higher or lower values). Furthermore, one can mentally determine which of the values to change in an iteration of modifying the values. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind. Furthermore, the limitation “ obtaining information indicating a result of changes made by alternately iterating a changing process of changing the change-target item value by a predetermined amount or more, based on the changing direction and the determination process until the subject attribute dataset is within the area range” is also a mental step. One can mentally determine changes made to a dataset by continuously modifying data based on a specific criterion. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind. Furthermore, the limitations “ generating, based on the information indicating the result of changes made by the alternately iterating, an improvement recommendation for the user to be healthy, the improvement recommendation including an improvement action of changing an appropriate item value for improving health among the plurality of item values related to the health conditions” and “ displaying the improvement recommendation” are also mental steps. One can mentally generate a recommendation to a user with a recommended action for improving the health of an individuation based on a health condition and write it down- for example a doctor could write out or print a diagnosis to a patient based on accessing statistical data related to the patient’s health condition. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind or using pen and paper. Step 2A prong 2 : Claims 1, 6 and 7 recite the limitation “ obtaining a plurality of attribute datasets including a subject attribute dataset of a user and information indicating an area range that is taken as a target in a dimensional space, the plurality of attribute datasets each being a combination of a plurality of item values related to health conditions of a patient. This limitation is an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. Furthermore, Claims 1, 6 and 7 recite the following additional elements “ a computer”, “a processor”, “memory” and “information processing apparatus”, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer hardware and software components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application. Step 2B : the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. With respect to the "obtaining” limitation identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. 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); … 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);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible. Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 2-5 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes". Claims 2-5 furthermore recite: (claim 2) the determination process includes determining the change-target item value and the changing direction for the change-target item value such that the subject attribute dataset approaches the area range through an area where at least some of the plurality of attribute datasets are clustered in the dimensional space ; (claim 3): the determination process includes determining the change-target item value and the changing direction for the change-target item value , based on a distribution of attribute datasets existing within a predetermined range from the subject attribute dataset in the dimensional space ; (claim 4): the determination process includes determining the change-target item value and the changing direction for the change-target item value , based on correlation relationship between types of the plurality of item values included in the attribute datasets existing within the predetermined range from the subject attribute dataset ; and (claim 5): the determination process includes determining the change-target item value and the changing direction for the change-target item value , based on a candidate destination point with minimum Mahalanobis distance from the subject attribute dataset among a plurality of candidate destination points with a predetermined distance in Lp-norm from the subject attribute dataset . Step 1 : Claims 2-5 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories. Step 2A prong 1 : Claims 2-5 recite limitations that are abstract ideas. The limitations “ determining the change-target item value and the changing direction for the change-target item value: such that the subject attribute dataset approaches the area range through an area where at least some of the plurality of attribute datasets are clustered in the dimensional space, based on a distribution of attribute datasets existing within a predetermined range from the subject attribute dataset in the dimensional space, correlation relationship between types of the plurality of item values included in the attribute datasets existing within the predetermined range from the subject attribute dataset, and a candidate destination point with minimum Mahalanobis distance from the subject attribute dataset among a plurality of candidate destination points with a predetermined distance in Lp-norm from the subject attribute dataset ” are mental steps that further define the ‘determining’ step in claim 1 based on certain factors. As such, the limitations recite mental steps. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind. Step 2A prong 2 : Claims 2-5 do not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B : Claims 2-5 do not recite any additional elements that would provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 2-5 as a whole are ineligible. To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory} above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to place them within the four statutory categories of the invention. Novel and/or non-obvious Subject Matter Claims 1-7 were indicated as reciting novel and/or non-obvious subject matter in the Non-final action dated December 3, 2025. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Ban et al (US 2003/0101075) directed to: generating healthy life expectancy prediction data to optimize advice as healthcare guidance [ Abstract; 1, 2, 6, 7 and related portions of specification ]; Saria et al (US 2013/0185097) directed to: risk scoring systems and methods applied to a range of prediction tasks, offering the ability to target risk scores to particular clinical needs [ Abstract, para 49, 61, 68, 79; Fig 3, 4, 6 and related portions of specification ]; Wexler et al (US 2021/0241916) directed to: assist a user in improving their health by predicting which health factors are most likely to contribute to significant and lasting changes in health metrics [ Abstract; para 15-16, 98; Fig 5 and related portions of specification ]. 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 CHERYL M SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4018. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm. 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, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-270-1698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. CHERYL M SHECHTMANPatent Examiner Art Unit 2164 /C.M.S//AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/089,574 Page 2 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/089,574 Page 3 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/089,574 Page 4 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/089,574 Page 5 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/089,574 Page 6 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/089,574 Page 7 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/089,574 Page 8 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/089,574 Page 9 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/089,574 Page 10 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/089,574 Page 11 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/089,574 Page 12 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/089,574 Page 13 Art Unit: 2164
Prosecution Insights