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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed 8-3-2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is a non final rejection
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-27 are pending
Claims 2, 14 were cancelled
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 21, 23 were amended
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-27 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for a domestic priority date of 4-12-2022
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4-10-2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 3-13, 15-27are not patent eligible because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
First, claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter. Regarding claims 1, 3-13, 15-27 the claims recite an abstract idea of “determining based on input associated with a person a health status score”.
Independent Claims 1 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 based on the following analysis.
-Step 1 (Does the claim fall within a statutory category? YES): claims 1 & 13 recite a method and system of determining based on input associated with a person a health status score.
-Step 2A Prong One (Does the claim fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas?: YES):
receive the input, wherein the input comprises input data representing entered parameter values of at least three parameters from the plurality of parameters of the parameter set;
generating, based on the input data, a plurality of candidate records,
wherein each candidate record comprises:
the entered parameter values of the at least three parameters of the parameter set; and
a candidate parameter value for each further parameter of the parameter set, the further parameter being different from the at least three parameters, wherein the candidate parameter value is generated... based on the entered parameter values using conditional dependencies among parameters of the parameter set learned from health statistics data;
such that, for each candidate record, a parameter value combination formed by the entered parameter values and the candidate parameter values forms a unique combination within the plurality of parameter value combinations of the candidate records;
generating, for each candidate record, a likelihood value indicative of a probability that the parameter value combination of the candidate record provides a true representation of the traits of the person; and
determining, using the parameter value combinations of the candidate records and the likelihood values associated with the candidate records, the health status score of the person associated with the input, wherein the health status score is based on the candidate records.
belong to the grouping of mental processes under concepts performed in the human mind as it recites “determining based on input associated with a person a health status score”. Alternatively, the selected abstract idea belongs to the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as it recites “determining based on input associated with a person a health status score”. (refer to MPP 2106.04(a)(2)). Accordingly this claim recites an abstract idea.
-Step 2A Prong Two (Are there additional elements in the claim that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea? NO).
Claim 1 recites:
a server comprising a communication unit configured to receive the input via a network
wherein the server further comprises a processor configured for executing a first machine learning data processing model
wherein the first machine learning data processing model has been trained using health statistics data comprising parameter values of the parameter set for a population of persons, and is configured for generating, based on the input data, a plurality of candidate records
wherein the candidate parameter value is generated by the first machine learning data processing model
wherein the first machine learning data processing model is further configured for generating, for each candidate record, a likelihood value
wherein the processor is further configured for determining, using the parameter value combinations of the candidate records and the likelihood values associated with the candidate records, the health status score of the person associated with the input;
Claim 13 recites:
receivingvia a network, by a server comprising a communication unit
generating, by a first machine learning data processing model executed by a processor of the server,, a plurality of candidate records based on the input data, wherein the first machine learning data processing model has been trained using health statistics data comprising parameter values of the parameter set for a population of persons
wherein the candidate parameter value is generated by the first machine learning data processing model
generating for each candidate record, by the first machine learning data processing model, a likelihood value indicative of a probability that the parameter value combination of the candidate record provides a true representation of the traits of the person
determining, by the processor , using the parameter value combinations of the candidate records and the likelihood values associated with the candidate records, the health status score of the person associated with the input.
Amounting to additional elements that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Support for this can be found in the specification, paragraphs (0007-0017). (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
-Step 2B (Does the additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept?: NO. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two,
Claim 1 recites:
a server comprising a communication unit configured to receive the input via a network
wherein the server further comprises a processor configured for executing a first machine learning data processing model
wherein the first machine learning data processing model has been trained using health statistics data comprising parameter values of the parameter set for a population of persons, and is configured for generating, based on the input data, a plurality of candidate records
wherein the candidate parameter value is generated by the first machine learning data processing model
wherein the first machine learning data processing model is further configured for generating, for each candidate record, a likelihood value
wherein the processor is further configured for determining, using the parameter value combinations of the candidate records and the likelihood values associated with the candidate records, the health status score of the person associated with the input;
Claim 13 recites:
receivingvia a network, by a server comprising a communication unit
generating, by a first machine learning data processing model executed by a processor of the server,, a plurality of candidate records based on the input data, wherein the first machine learning data processing model has been trained using health statistics data comprising parameter values of the parameter set for a population of persons
wherein the candidate parameter value is generated by the first machine learning data processing model
generating for each candidate record, by the first machine learning data processing model, a likelihood value indicative of a probability that the parameter value combination of the candidate record provides a true representation of the traits of the person
determining, by the processor , using the parameter value combinations of the candidate records and the likelihood values associated with the candidate records, the health status score of the person associated with the input.
Amount to additional elements that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Support for this can be found in the specification, paragraphs (0007-0017). (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, even in combination the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) and hence the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims:
Step 2A Prong One: The following dependent claims recite additional limitations that further define the abstract idea of “determining based on input associated with a person a health status score”: claims 3, 5-12, 15, 17-26.
Step 2A Prong Two (Are there additional elements in the claim that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea? NO). The following dependent claims 3-6, 8-10, 12, 15-17, 20-22, 24-27 recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept?: NO). As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the following dependent claims 3-6, 8-10, 12, 15-17, 20-22, 24-27 recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) and hence the claim is ineligible.
Regarding Prior Art:
No prior art that fully teaches the instant application was found.
The prior art reference of record that is most closely related to the claim limitation recited above includes:
Saliman (US 20170372029 A1) - SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING AND PROVIDING A DISPLAY OF A PLURALITY OF WELLNESS SCORES FOR PATIENTS WITH REGARD TO A MEDICAL CONDITION AND/OR A MEDICAL TREATMENT - teaches: An interface displaying a plurality of previously determined wellness scores for a plurality of patients may be generated and provided to a display device. The patients may each be associated with a patient characteristic, a treatment, and/or a diagnosis. In some instances, the patients may be associated with a particular treatment provider or group of treatment providers and plurality of previously determined wellness scores may enable a treatment provider to quickly view (via the interface) the current wellness of patients under his or her care. In other instances, the plurality of previously determined wellness scores may be associated with a diagnosis and a corresponding treatment so that the interface provides the wellness scores for patients who have undergone the treatment and a viewer may observe how the treatment impacted the wellness scores for the patients.
Perkins (US 20200227172 A1) - DETERMINING INDICATORS OF INDIVIDUAL HEALTH- teaches: Techniques and systems for determining indicators of the health of individuals are described. The indicators can include scores that help individuals to determine the state of their health. Recommendations with specific service recommendations can also be determined that can help individuals increase the health indicators of the individuals. The techniques and systems described herein leverage the large amounts of medical knowledge, individual health behavioral and environmental data to produce measures of an individual's health status. In implementations, one or more models can be evaluated with respect to health information of the individuals to determine the health scores for the individuals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8-3-2026, have been fully considered but not found
persuasive.
Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 21, 23 as posted in the above analysis with additions underlined and deletions as .
In response to applicant's arguments regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112.
Regarding claim 1: Based on the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 the 35 U.S.C § 112 rejection is withdrawn.
In response to applicant's arguments regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Several steps are taken in the analysis as to whether an invention is rejected under 101. The first step is to determine if the claim falls within a statutory category. In this case it does for claims 1 and 13 since the claims recite a method and system of determining based on input associated with a person a health status score.
The second step under 2A prong one is to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, which would be the case if the invention can be grouped as either: a) mathematical concepts; (b) mental processes; or (c) certain methods of organizing human activity (encompassing (i) fundamental economic principles, (ii) commercial or legal interactions or (iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). The current invention is classified as an abstract idea since it may be grouped as a mental processes under concepts performed in the human mind as it recites “determining based on input associated with a person a health status score”. Alternativelly it may be grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as it recites “determining based on input associated with a person a health status score”.
The third step under 2A Prong Two is to determine if additional elements in the claim imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea in order to integrate it into a practical idea. The current invention does not represent a practical idea since the additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
the fourth step under 2B is to determine if additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept. An invention may be classified as an inventive concept if a computer-implemented processes is determined to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic, and non-conventional even if generic computer operations on a generic computing device is used to implement the abstract idea. The current invention does not represent an inventive concept since the additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong ONE
The Applicant argues that the claimed invention is not directed to a mental process or a method of managing personal behavior, although does not offer a clear explanation to why the claimed subject matter is not directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner disagrees since the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The method used to select the abstract idea, is to strip the additional elements from the claims. As seen below the recited boldened words constitute the abstract idea after stripping the un-boldened additional elements of amended limitation of claim 1:
Claim 1:
A system for determining, based on input associated with a person, a health status score associated with the person, and wherein the input relates to parameter values of one or more parameters from a parameter set, the parameter set comprising a plurality of defined parameters, the parameters relating to traits of the person, wherein the system comprises:
a server comprising a communication unit configured to receive the input via a network, wherein the input comprises input data representing entered parameter values of at least three parameters from the plurality of parameters of the parameter set;
wherein the server further comprises a processor configured for executing a first machine learning data processing model;
wherein the first machine learning data processing model has been trained using health statistics data comprising parameter values of the parameter set for a population of persons, and is configured for generating, based on the input data, a plurality of candidate records,
wherein each candidate record comprises:
the entered parameter values of the at least three parameters of the parameter set; and
a candidate parameter value for each further parameter of the parameter set, the further parameter being different from the at least three parameters, wherein the candidate parameter value is generated by the first machine learning data processing model based on the entered parameter values using conditional dependencies among parameters of the parameter set learned from health statistics data;
such that, for each candidate record, a parameter value combination formed by the entered parameter values and the candidate parameter values forms a unique combination within the plurality of parameter value combinations of the candidate records;
wherein the first machine learning data processing model is further configured for generating, for each candidate record, a likelihood value indicative of a probability that the parameter value combination of the candidate record provides a true representation of the traits of the person; and
wherein the processor is further configured for determining, using the parameter value combinations of the candidate records and the likelihood values associated with the candidate records, the health status score of the person associated with the input, wherein the health status score is based on the candidate records.
The selected abstract idea (boldened limitations) of claims 1 & 13 belong to the grouping of mental processes under concepts performed in the human mind as it recites “determining based on input associated with a person a health status score”. Alternatively they belong to the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as it recites “determining based on input associated with a person a health status score”. (refer to MPP 2106.04(a)(2)). Accordingly this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong TWO
The Applicant argues that claims 1 &13 are directed to an improvement to a specific technology of a trained machine learning model (i.e., one that receives at least three inputs) that represents an improvement to the technology of machine-learning based processing of input health-related parameters of users to render further values for further health status parameters that have not been expressly measured/observed. Specifically the Applicant argues that the invention provides certain technological/computing efficiency advantages while providing a statistics- based estimate of personal health without requiring a complex infrastructure to obtain all data necessary to perform such an estimate by reducing computational complexity in both generation and evaluation of personal/patient health data. Moreover, the Applicant argues that the claimed invention is based upon a relevant insight that a trained model can learn conditional dependencies from population health-statistics data and then use those dependencies, together with the entered values, to construct further/alternative complete records and corresponding likelihood values from otherwise incomplete input whereby the improvement lies in how the computer system processes its input - not merely in the informational content of the final score.
Based on the above arguments the Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101..
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant since the arguments provided are not persuasive. What is required for the invention to be directed to a practical application is a demonstration of improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field that the invention has recited. The applicant has only used the additional elements generically to implement the abstract idea.
The Examiner restates that claims 1 & 13 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 & 13 do not recite additional elements that impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea:
Claim 1 recites:
a server comprising a communication unit configured to receive the input via a network
wherein the server further comprises a processor configured for executing a first machine learning data processing model
wherein the first machine learning data processing model has been trained using health statistics data comprising parameter values of the parameter set for a population of persons, and is configured for generating, based on the input data, a plurality of candidate records
wherein the candidate parameter value is generated by the first machine learning data processing model
wherein the first machine learning data processing model is further configured for generating, for each candidate record, a likelihood value
wherein the processor is further configured for determining, using the parameter value combinations of the candidate records and the likelihood values associated with the candidate records, the health status score of the person associated with the input.
Claim 13 recites:
receiving
generating, by a first machine learning data processing model executed by a processor of the server,, a plurality of candidate records based on the input data, wherein the first machine learning data processing model has been trained using health statistics data comprising parameter values of the parameter set for a population of persons
wherein the candidate parameter value is generated by the first machine learning data processing model
generating for each candidate record, by the first machine learning data processing model, a likelihood value indicative of a probability that the parameter value combination of the candidate record provides a true representation of the traits of the person
determining, by the processor , using the parameter value combinations of the candidate records and the likelihood values associated with the candidate records, the health status score of the person associated with the input.
The elements as recited above for claims 1 & 13 amount to additional elements that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In order to integrate the abstract idea into a practical idea the Applicant could demonstrate at least one of the conditions enumerated below applies:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The Applicant has not demonstrated any of the above listed conditions. As a result, the Examiner restates the rejection of the invention under 35 USC §101.
Step 2B
Similar to the analysis under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). The use of generic computer components, in combination, do not perform functions that are not merely generic, and non-conventional even if the generic computer operations on a generic computing device is used to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) and hence the claim is ineligible.
In order evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept what could be shown is:
Adding a specific limitation (unconventional other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d)
The Applicant has not demonstrated the above listed condition.
For reasons of record and as set forth above, the examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 3-13, 15-27 and as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, and thereby being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 USC §101. In reaching this decision, the Examiner considered all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIERRE L MACCAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-5408. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 to 5:00.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571)270-1813. 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.
/PIERRE L MACCAGNO/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/ALAAELDIN M. ELSHAER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
