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 .
Status of Claims
This action is a final rejection
Claims 1-27 are pending
Claims 1, 11, 13, 19, 23 were amended
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-27 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 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.
Claim 1 meets the three-prong test and therefore invokes § 112(f). The words of the claim do not rebut the presumption that the claim limitation is to be interpreted under § 112(f).
Regarding claim 1
The Examiner interprets “an input interface configured to 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” as invoking 35 U.S.C. §112(f). However, there is no disclosure of corresponding structure that performs the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-12 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.
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.
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-12 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.
Regarding claim 1: “an input interface configured to 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” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function since the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. The Examiner notes that it is not clear how the structure performs the recited function of receiving the input of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Furthermore the disclosure does not provide sufficient details of how “the input interface” performs the claimed function of receiving the input. For computer-implemented functional claims, the determination of the sufficiency of the disclosure under § 112(a) requires an inquiry into whether the specification provides a disclosure of the computer and algorithm that achieve the claimed function in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. See MPEP § 2161.01(I) and 2181(II)(B). Therefore Independent claim 1 is 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.
Regarding claims 2-12: Since claims 2-12 are dependent on claim 1, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre AIA ).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-27 are 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 1-27 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 different from the at least three parameters;
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
wherein, during the generating, generating, for each candidate record, the candidate value for each further parameter, based on the entered parameter values.
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).
Claims 1 & 13 recite:
a processor configured for executing a first machine learning data processing model;
the first machine learning data processing model;
Claim 1 recites:
an input interface;
the processor is further configured.
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,
Claims 1 & 13 recite:
a processor configured for executing a first machine learning data processing model;
the first machine learning data processing model;
Claim 1 recites:
an input interface;
the processor is further configured;
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”. These claim limitations include:
Claims 2 & 14: 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;
Claim 3 & 15:
wherein for determining the health status score determining, for each candidate record, an individual health status score associated with the candidate record; and
wherein, for determining the health status score of the person, calculating a weighed mean of the individual health status scores weighed based on the associated likelihood values of each candidate record;
Claim 5: wherein at least three parameters comprise age, gender and ethnicity
Claims 6 & 18: determining, using the parameter value combinations of the candidate records and the likelihood values associated with the candidate records, an error value associated with the health status score indicative of an accuracy of the health status score;
Claim 7 & 19: wherein the parameter set comprises one or more parameters taken from the group
gender;
smoking status;
physical age;
ethnicity;
heart condition history;
heart rate;
body mass index;
arm circumference;
waist circumference;
hemoglobin A1c level;
(overnight) fasting glucose level;
glucose level at predetermined time after start of glucose tolerance test;
triglyceride level;
high- density-lipoprotein level;
low-density-lipoprotein level;
total cholesterol level;
diastolic blood pressure;
systolic blood pressure;
whether or not hemoglobin A1c level is elevated;
whether or not glucose level at start of glucose tolerance test is elevated;
whether or not glucose level at predetermined time after start of glucose tolerance test is elevated;
whether or not low-density-lipoprotein level is elevated;
whether or not triglyceride level is elevated;
whether or not total cholesterol level is elevated;
whether or not antidiabetic medication is used;
whether or not antihypertensive medication is used;
whether or not antihyperlipidemic medication is used;
hypertension status;
presence or absence of the metabolic syndrome;
presence or absence of prediabetes;
maximal oxygen uptake;
thigh circumference;
sleep duration; daily number of steps; and
any ratios between quantifiable parameters
Claims 8 & 20: calculating a single representative value of a first principal component based on one or more of the parameters of the parameter set as input, and wherein the one or more parameters comprise one or more parameters taken from the group consisting of:
smoking status;
heart condition history;
heart rate;
body mass index;
arm circumference;
waist circumference;
hemoglobin A1c level;
glucose level at start of glucose tolerance test;
glucose level at predetermined time after start of glucose tolerance test;
triglyceride level;
high-density-lipoprotein level;
low-density-lipoprotein level;
total cholesterol level;
diastolic blood pressure; and
systolic blood pressure
Claims 9 & 21;
scaling the health status score by multiplying the health status score with a scaling factor, wherein the scaling factor is dependent on the at least three parameters
Claims 10 & 22: obtaining an algorithm for determining the scaling factor, wherein for obtaining the algorithm the processor is configured for:
identifying a plurality of distinguished conditions, wherein each condition is represented by a unique combination of parameter values of the at least three parameters;
generating, for each condition and based on the unique combination associated with the condition, a plurality of model candidate records;
calculating, for each condition, a modelled health status score associated with the condition; and
performing a linear regression model for obtaining the algorithm
Claims 11 & 23: the health status core is related to at least one of the group consisting of:
a physical age;
one or more health states
Claims 12 & 24: wherein the health status score is related to a physical age, and calculating a biological age by adding the health status score to the physical age;
Claims 13: wherein re-configuring the treatment prediction model comprises re-training the treatment prediction model only on the third subset of predictive features
Claim 25:
obtaining, health statistics data, wherein the health statistics data comprises health parameter statistics for a population of persons;
identify one or more conditional dependencies between a plurality of health parameters comprised by the health statistics data, wherein the one or more conditional dependencies quantify whether and to which degree any health parameter of the plurality of health parameters is dependent on any other health parameter of the plurality of health parameters; and
identifying a stable set of conditional dependencies, wherein the set is determined as stable if a change in any of the conditional dependencies is smaller than a predetermined threshold
Claim 26:
obtaining a training data representing training parameter values of the at least three parameters from the plurality of parameters of the parameter set;
generating, , for each further parameter of the parameter set different from the at least three parameters, a generated parameter value;
generating, a likelihood value indicative of a probability that a training combination of the training parameter values and the generated parameter values provides a true representation of the traits of the person;
comparing the likelihood value with the health parameter statistics for verifying a correctness of the likelihood value; and
modifying, dependent on the step of comparing, at least one of the one or more conditional dependencies
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 recite 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 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. The claims include:
Claims 2 & 14:
the processor;
Claim 3 & 15:
the processor is further configured for executing a second machine learning data processing model, wherein the second machine learning data processing model is configured;
Claim 4: wherein the second machine learning data processing model comprises at least one
a principal component analysis model,
an independent component analysis model,
a multidimensional scaling model,
a singular value decomposition, and
a non-negative matrix factorization
Claims 5 & 17: wherein
a Bayesian Network model,
a variational autoencoder, and
a generative adversarial network
Claims 6: wherein the processor is further configured
Claims 8 & 20: wherein the principal component analysis model is configured for
Claims 9 & 21: the processor is further configured for
Claims 10 & 22: wherein the processor is configured for:
applying the first machine learning data processing model
Claims 12 & 24: the processor is further configured for
Claim 16: wherein the second machine learning data processing model is a principal component analysis model
Claim 17: wherein
Claim 25: further comprising
a database;
performing, based on the health statistics data, an iterative optimization algorithm
terminating the iterative optimization algorithm
upon any further iteration;
Claim 26:
by the first machine learning data processing model
and perform the iterative optimization algorithm
Claim 27: wherein the iterative optimization algorithm is a tabu search algorithm.
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 recite 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, 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. The claims include:
Claims 2 & 14:
the processor;
Claim 3 & 15:
the processor is further configured for executing a second machine learning data processing model, wherein the second machine learning data processing model is configured;
Claim 4: wherein the second machine learning data processing model comprises at least one
a principal component analysis model,
an independent component analysis model,
a multidimensional scaling model,
a singular value decomposition, and
a non-negative matrix factorization
Claims 5 & 17: wherein
a Bayesian Network model,
a variational autoencoder, and
a generative adversarial network
Claims 6: wherein the processor is further configured
Claims 8 & 20: wherein the principal component analysis model is configured for
Claims 9 & 21: the processor is further configured for
Claims 10 & 22: wherein the processor is configured for:
applying the first machine learning data processing model
Claims 12 & 24: the processor is further configured for
Claim 16: wherein the second machine learning data processing model is a principal component analysis model
Claim 17: wherein
Claim 25: further comprising
a database;
performing, based on the health statistics data, an iterative optimization algorithm
terminating the iterative optimization algorithm
upon any further iteration;
Claim 26:
by the first machine learning data processing model
and perform the iterative optimization algorithm
Claim 27: wherein the iterative optimization algorithm is a tabu search algorithm.
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 12-17-2025, have been fully considered but not found
persuasive.
Applicant amended claims 1, 11, 13, 19, 23 as posted in the above analysis.
In response to applicant's arguments regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112.
Regarding claim 1: the Applicant argues there is more than sufficient support in Applicant's original disclosure of "input interface" that is a structural component of any/all computer systems. For example, Applicant's original specification, at page 9, line 17 - page 10, line 3, provides ample written description of various alternative implementations an 'input interface' structure. The various implementations are difficult to bring under a single structural denominator, given their strongly differing nature. However, examples include a mobile telecommunication unit 16 with a data repository and a blood pressure sensor providing input to the processor for further processing in accordance with the disclosure. Also a manner in which data is conveyed between the different entities involved is described. As such, one skilled in the art would undoubtedly understand that Applicant's disclosure contemplated an "input interface" to facilitate relevant parameter data transfer to the computer system configured to carry out the claimed operations.
The Examiner does not find the Applicant’s arguments to be persuasive. There is no reference in the specification regarding “input interface”. The Applicant expects us to infer that input to a blood pressure sensor or the manner in which data is conveyed between different entities is through an input interface, yet this is not enough since there could be other methods of transmitting the data. Since there is no support or disclosure for the corresponding structure that performs the function of “input interface” the 112(a) and 112(b) rejection is maintained for this issue for claim 1 and its dependents.
Regarding claims 1 and 13 the Applicant has amended the original limitation “wherein, during the generating, the first machine learning data processing model is configured for generating, for each candidate record, the candidate value for each further parameter, based on the entered parameter values”. Hence the Examiner removes the 112 (b) rejection regarding this limitation for claims 1, 13 and their dependent claims.
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 although does not offer a clear explanation to whether the claimed subject matter is 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 claims 1 & 13:
Claims 1 and 13:
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:
an input interface configured to 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;
wherein the system further comprises a processor configured for executing a first machine learning data processing model;
wherein the first machine learning data processing model 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 different from the at least three parameters;
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 first machine learning data processing model is configured for generating, the candidate parameter value for each further parameter, based on the entered parameter values.
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 is 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.
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 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:
Claims 1 & 13 recite:
a processor configured for executing a first machine learning data processing model;
the first machine learning data processing model;
Claim 1 recites:
an input interface;
the processor is further configured;
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 1-12 under 35 USC §112 and maintains the rejection of claims 1-27 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
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 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
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684