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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Now, claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 6, 2026 is 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.
3. 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 1-20 are directed to collecting medical data of a user, which is managing a personal behavior. Managing personal behaviors fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-7 recite a method and at least one step. Claims 8-14 recite a system comprising a memory and processor. Claims 15-20 recite a computer program product comprising a computer-readable tangible storage medium. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, manufacture, apparatus).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a process in which medical data is collected with regard to a user, including through the facilitation of managing personal behavior, in the following limitations:
collecting data associated with a user;
identifying, for each type of data, at least one biomarker associated with the user;
associating each biomarker;
assigning a biomarker priority;
generating a schedule for resource processing based on the biomarker priority, before respective biomarker data expires; and
executing the schedule for resource processing to ensure appropriate resources are allocated for appropriate processes.
The above-recited limitations collect data associated with a user to generate and execute a schedule for resource processing. This arrangement amounts to managing personal behavior. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
from a medical device
generated by the medical device
with a concerned component and/or a medical model
to a related component
a mobile edge computing layer
the schedule prioritizes applications based on resources needed for processing by each application
by filtering requested computer resources
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“from a medical device”, “generated by the medical device”, “with a concerned component and/or a medical model”, “to a related component”, “a mobile edge computing layer”, “the schedule prioritizes applications based on resources needed for processing by each application”, “by filtering requested computer resources”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (collecting, identifying, associating, assigning, generating, executing). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 7, 24, 30, 38, 47-49, 70, and 72 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 8 and 15 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Dependent claims
Each of these steps of the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner.
For example, regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16, Claims 2, 9, and 16 sets forth:
wherein the assignment is selected from a group consisting of expert-defined prioritization, inferred prioritization, and registered prioritization.
Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of collecting data associated with a user to generate and execute a schedule for resource processing, including facilitating managing personal behavior. The claim does not set forth any additional limitations. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0233119, Shelton, et al., hereinafter Shelton in view of United States Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0221897, Chow, et al., hereinafter Chow.
Regarding claim 1, Shelton discloses a processor-implemented method, the method comprising:
collecting data from a medical device associated with a user, (para. 1842, collecting data from the data sources and para. 1854, Biomarker information may be received from local devices, such as other wearable sensing systems, surgical equipment, surgical instruments, visualization systems,);
identifying, for each type of data, at least one biomarker generated by the medical device associated with the user, (para. 176, The biomarkers 20005 measured by the one or more sensing systems 20001 may include, but are not limited to, sleep, core body temperature, maximal oxygen consumption, physical activity, alcohol consumption, respiration rate, oxygen saturation, blood pressure, blood sugar, heart rate variability, blood potential of hydrogen, hydration state, heart rate, skin conductance, peripheral temperature, tissue perfusion pressure, coughing and sneezing, gastrointestinal motility, gastrointestinal tract imaging, respiratory tract bacteria, edema, mental aspects, sweat, circulating tumor cells, autonomic tone, circadian rhythm, and/or menstrual cycle);
associating each biomarker with a concerned component and/or a medical model, (para. 1186, Complications (e.g., prolonged air leak or esophageal stricture) may be predicted (e.g., by a model) based on patient parameters and/or patient biomarker measurements and para. 2030, a machine learning model for one or more biomarkers during exercise may be generated. For example, a machine learning model for one or more biomarkers of patients with hypertension while eating may be generated);
assigning a biomarker priority to a related component, (para. 2306, the first biomarker having priority over the second biomarker may be determined based on the first weight and the second weight. In an example, the first and second biomarker interlinking to a physiologic function and/or morbidity may be determined based on the prioritization).
Shelton does not explicitly disclose generating a schedule for resource processing at a mobile edge computing layer based on the biomarker priority, wherein the schedule prioritizes applications based on resources needed for processing by each application before respective biomarker data expires; and
executing the schedule for resource processing by filtering requested computer resources to ensure appropriate resources are allocated for appropriate processes.
However, Chow teaches generating a schedule for resource processing at a mobile edge computing layer based on the biomarker priority, wherein the schedule prioritizes applications based on resources needed for processing by each application before respective biomarker data expires, (para. 290, various prioritized data types may be sent for processing to the edge device or the fog computing device in order, for example, based on a priority value associated with each of the data types and para. 326, a priority may be assigned to the surgical data subsets or subblocks (e.g., each of the surgical data subblocks) to determine the time and/or the resource that may be used for processing a particular surgical data subset or a subblock. The availability of at least one resources may be used in determining the resource that may be a particular data subset or a subblock of a particular priority level and para. 330, local surgical data (e.g., surgical data set 52795) may be adjusted and/or scaled 52800 based on at least one of the following: timeliness of the needed result, processing and memory available, network bandwidth or communication parameters (e.g., throughput, latency, etc.), risk level of functioning without the answer, importance of the data or task, availability of other surgical data to be used in substitution. In an example, if a surgical data set 52795 to be analyzed is associated with timeliness of the needed result, the compartmentalization may be performed in a way that the time sensitive surgical data is scaled to be processed by Resources 2 and 3 (e.g., with all three time slots available for processing) and not Resource 1 (with the first time slot not being available for processing immediate or in slot 1). In an example, scaling of the breadth, depth, and/or reduction of local surgical data may be performed to balance the level of results achieved within a time interval and the resources that may be needed); and
executing the schedule for resource processing by filtering requested computer resources to ensure appropriate resources are allocated for appropriate processes, (para. 283, a condensed parameterization mechanism may be utilized by a system (e.g., a system located in lower hierarchical level hierarchy) to filter out, condense interrelated data, or filter data that may have less significant probabilities of impacting a measured outcome).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the present application to modify Shelton to include generating a schedule for resource processing at a mobile edge computing layer based on the biomarker priority, wherein the schedule prioritizes applications based on resources needed for processing by each application before respective biomarker data expires; and executing the schedule for resource processing by filtering requested computer resources to ensure appropriate resources are allocated for appropriate processes, as taught by Chow, in order to improve approaches to patient care. (Chow, para. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Shelton discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Shelton further discloses wherein the assignment is selected from a group consisting of expert-defined prioritization, inferred prioritization, and registered prioritization, (para. 1896, the data collection 29025 may include prioritization of the data streams. For example, the data collection 29025 may apply a weight to the data based on the prioritization. The data collection 29025, analysis 29029, and/or risk model 29030 may rank the incoming data streams in numerical order based on the prioritization, as shown in FIG. 101A. The heart rate 29028 may be prioritized as the most important data over other data streams and ranked with a number one, for example. The oxygen saturation 29027 may be prioritized as the second most important data and ranked with a number two, for example. The blood pressure 29026 may be prioritized as the third most important data and ranked with a number three, for example. The weight may be applied to the data based on the numerical ranking. The prioritization may be incorporated into a risk model). The manner in which Shelton assigns the prioritization to biomarkers is analogous to the way that registered prioritization is defined in Applicant’s Specification.
Regarding claim 3, Shelton discloses the method of claims 1 and 2 as described above. Shelton further discloses wherein assigning a biomarker priority under inferred prioritization further comprises:
in response to multiple collections of a specific biomarker occurring during a given time window, averaging values of the specific biomarker, (para. 1513, the data in graph 27326 may show the average deviation of heart rates continuously for patients throughout a recovery timeline in line graph format, and para. 1514, a process 27400 for a computing-implemented patient and surgeon monitoring system that aggregates biomarker data. The process 27400 may be performed by the computing device 27203 aggregating patient biomarker data described above in FIG. 77. At 27402, the computing device 27203 may compute the expected patient biomarker data 27223 for each of a plurality of patients).
Regarding claim 4, Shelton discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Shelton further discloses further comprising:
generating a future schedule based on predicted application usage and expected biomarker data usage and readings, (para. 1927, The machine learning may use the determined risk of complication to train the risk model, for example. After an analysis, the previous patient outcomes and/or risk models may be updated to provide more accurate data for future analysis and para. 2432, The surgical sensing system may select a future measurement yet to be sensed for example. The surgical sensing system may select the future measurement yet to be sensed based on the received request. The surgical sensing system may select a measurement closest in time to the received request).
Regarding claim 5, Shelton discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Shelton further discloses wherein each biomarker priority is associated with a geofenced area or a GPS-derived activity, (para. 2273, The data stream from the second wearable device 29402 may include data pertaining to biomarkers. The data stream from the second wearable device 29402 may include data pertaining to motion biomarkers. Data pertaining to motion biomarkers may include accelerometer, magnetometer, gyroscope, GPS, PPG and/or ECG measurements. At 29403, data pertaining to motion biomarkers may be selected).
Regarding claim 6, Shelton discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Shelton further discloses wherein the association is based on an inference of concern, (para. 1123, one or more ML classification algorithms may predict one or more types/classes of complications and/or recovery milestones by inference from input data).
Regarding claim 7, Shelton discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Shelton further discloses wherein the at least one biomarker is identified using one or more of expert schema knowledge, profiling a schema, surveying a patient or schema, and device/application assertion, (para. 2455, A surgical sensor system 29712, 29714 may measure a biomarker and communicate information about that biomarker to other devices within the system 29710. A surgical sensor system 29712, 29714 may include a respective surgical-data-processing schema).
Regarding claims 8-14, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claims 1-7. Shelton further discloses one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method, (para. 1225, a processor and a memory coupled to the processor and para. 1302, Methods may be implemented (e.g., in whole or in part), for example, by one or more devices, apparatuses, and/or systems (e.g., a hub, a sensing system, and/or the like), which may comprise one or more processors configured to execute the methods (e.g., in whole or in part) as computer executable instructions that may be stored on a computer readable medium or a computer program product, that, when executed by the one or more processors, performs the methods. The computer readable medium or the computer program product may comprise (e.g., store) instructions that cause one or more processors to perform the methods by executing the instructions).
Regarding claims 15-20, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claims 1-6. Shelton further discloses a computer program product, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium, the program instructions executable by a processor capable of performing a method, (para. 1225, a processor and a memory coupled to the processor and para. 1302, Methods may be implemented (e.g., in whole or in part), for example, by one or more devices, apparatuses, and/or systems (e.g., a hub, a sensing system, and/or the like), which may comprise one or more processors configured to execute the methods (e.g., in whole or in part) as computer executable instructions that may be stored on a computer readable medium or a computer program product, that, when executed by the one or more processors, performs the methods. The computer readable medium or the computer program product may comprise (e.g., store) instructions that cause one or more processors to perform the methods by executing the instructions).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A. Applicant argues that the claimed invention is not a certain method of organizing human activity grouping under the managing personal behavior subgrouping since the claimed invention recites resource processing scheduling based on biomarker priority, which is more accurately characterized as a technical resource allocation problem for computing than managing personal behavior. Applicant submits the claimed invention, as amended, presents a practical application and/or provides significantly more.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, the claims set forth collecting data associated with a user to generate and execute a schedule for resource processing. This arrangement amounts to managing personal behavior. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, such arguments are not persuasive.
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). (Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The claims do not recite any unconventional computer functions. There are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and the claims are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is silent on any computer operation and specific technological implementation that would move the claim beyond a general link to a technological environment.
Further, in order for an alleged application of an abstract idea to be considered eligible, it must amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e., pass step 2B of the Mayo test). As shown in the rejection above, the claims set forth collecting data associated with a user to generate and execute a schedule for resource processing. Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Biomarker Change Indicator for Behavioral Health (US 20190142350 A1) teaches detecting user biomarker identifier changes based on audio preferences and generating biometric alerts based on the detected biomarker identifier changes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amber Misiaszek whose telephone number is 571-270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30, First Friday Off.
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, Fonya Long can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights