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 .
Claims 8 and 9 are cancelled. Claims 24 and 25 are added. Claims 1-7, 10, 12, 14-21 and 23-25 are pending and have been examined on the merits set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant generally discusses the rejection under Step 2A and suggests the “one or more sensors included in the one or more first devices associated with the entity” represent an additional element… is integral to achieving the …real-time burnout detection and proactive generation and execution of the intervention plan”. Examiner notes the claimed “sensors” merely add context to the personal data. The claim recites “receiving, by one or more processors… personal data, and the personal data includes… data… generated by one or more sensors…”. This broad recitation of sensor use amounts to using a computer as a tool to transmit data which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use. There is no improvement to the technology or computer and therefore no integration into a practical application.
In response to step 2B, Applicant broadly asserts the combination of machine learning models in conjunction with the sensors provide a technical improvement in the art, however, Applicant describes the improvements are to predicting burnout and generating targeted interventions which are abstract ideas. Further, any real-time benefits are merely from the capabilities of a general purpose computer and any efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f).
To reiterate, Per MPEP 2106.05 I, ”[a]n inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). In this case, the abstract idea is what is providing the improvement. “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.” Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 12, 14-21 and 23-25 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. Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 12, 14-21 and 23-25 is/are directed to a method, system, and computer program product. Thus, all the claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis provided in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), the Examiner notes that the claims recite mental processes certain methods of organizing human activity.
More specifically, the independent claims recite:
receiving, by one or more processors, relevant data associated with an entity from a plurality of data sources, wherein the relevant data represents a plurality of signals for assessing burnout, and the relevant data includes attributes data, professional data and personal data and the personal data includes first health data of the entity
determining, by the one or more processors and using a first machine learning model, a behavioral persona of the entity based on the attributes data; [evaluation – mental process]
determining, by the one or more processors and using the second machine learning model, a professional burnout score for the entity based on the professional data; [evaluation – mental process]
determining, by the one or more processors and using a third machine learning model, an individual burnout score for the entity based on the personal data, including the first health data [evaluation – mental process]
determining, by the one or more processors, at least one of a lateral burnout risk score or a longitudinal burnout risk score for the entity based on the behavioral persona, the professional burnout score, and the individual burnout score; [evaluation – mental process]
determining, by the one or more processors, that the at least one of the lateral burnout risk score or the longitudinal burnout risk score does not satisfy a pre- determined burnout threshold; [evaluation – mental process]
receiving, by the one or more processors, second health data of the entity generated by the one or more sensors during a second time period; [observation – mental process]
determining, by the one or more processors and using the third machine learning model, an updated individual burnout score for the entity based on the personal data, including the second health data; [evaluation – mental process]
determining, by the one or more processors, at least one of an updated lateral burnout risk score or an updated longitudinal burnout risk score for the entity based on the behavioral persona, the professional burnout score, and the updated individual burnout score; [evaluation – mental process]
determining, by the one or more processors, a likelihood of the entity to experience burnout based on the at least one of the updated lateral burnout risk score or the updated longitudinal burnout risk score satisfying the pre-determined burnout threshold; [evaluation – mental process] and in response to determining the likelihood of the entity to experience burnout:
causing, by the one or more processors, a presentation of a burnout indicator to be displayed [pen/paper – mental process]
generating and executing, by the one or more processors, an intervention plan to reduce the likelihood of the entity to experience burnout, the intervention plan including at least one action based on one of the plurality of signals determined as contributing to the likelihood; [evaluation, pen/paper – mental process]
These limitations recite mental processes because the claim limitations, as drafted, illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or by pen and paper. The claims also recite certain methods of organizing human activity as they relate to managing personal behaviors. But for the processors, data from sensors, and using machine learning models, the limitations could be done the same way mentally or manually with pen and paper. The nominal recitation of data from sensors and a processor using machine learning models do not indicate the claimed invention is not an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and 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, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1 is a computer-implemented method comprising processors and using machine learning models. Receiving data from a sensor amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Independent claim 16 is a system comprising one or more processors and at least one non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction which when executed cause the one or more processors to perform the method. Receiving data from a sensor amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Independent claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction which when executed cause the one or more processors to perform the method. Receiving data from a sensor amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In each independent claims, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2 and 17 recite scaling the attributes to provide equal weights to each variable of the attributes data and inputting into a machine learning model. Scaling the attributes is an abstract mental process. Inputting, by a processor, into the machine learning model amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the analysis. There is no integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 3, 4, 18 and 19 recite steps to pre-process professional data and input into a machine learning model. The pre-processing is an abstract mental process. Inputting, by a processor, into the machine learning model amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the analysis. There is no integration into a practical application.
Dependent claim 5 recites modifying a work schedule based on the burnout indicator. Similar to claim1, these steps are mental processes and can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper. Using a processor amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 6 recites analyzing a risk score to measure intervention efficacy and/or intervention adherence which is an abstract mental process . Computer implementation amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 7, further limit attribute data, professional data and personal data, respectively. These claims add additional details to the abstract idea described in claim 1 and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 10 recites details about the lateral burnout risk score and longitudinal burnout risk score, and comparing them. The claims recite additional details of the abstract idea described in claim 1 and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 12 recites details about the behavioral persona which is part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. Computer implementation amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 14 recites determining a behavioral persona using algorithms which is a mental process, using at least one of the deep embedded clustering algorithm or the K-means clustering algorithm to determine the behavioral persona which amounts to using a computer as a tool to implement the algorithms. The computer implementation of an abstract mental process does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 15 recites updating scores in real time which is a mental process. The computer implementation of an abstract mental process with a processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 21 recites installing an application on a computing device which only generally links the abstract idea to a particular technical environment or field of use. There is no integration into a practical application as there is no improvement to any computer or to any technical field.
Dependent claim 23 describes processing the feature data by a processor and the new feature generated has a greater feature relevancy for assessing burnout than the two or more features individually. This is an evaluation that is considered an abstract mental processes. Any computer implementation amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application as there is no improvement to any computer or to any technical field.
Dependent claim 24 recites identifying and processing missing values which is an abstract idea. Any computer implementation amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application as there is no improvement to any computer or to any technical field.
Dependent claim 25 recites receiving feedback used to update a machine learning model. This broadly describes an additional element that amounts to using a computer as a tool to implement a learning model and only generally links the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment.
The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually, the system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The closest prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach Applicant’s invention. The closest prior art, cited by examiner, includes: Wiggermann et al, US 2023/0114135 and Ahmadi et al, US 11449817. Further, Applicant’s reply makes evident the reason for allowance, satisfying the record as a whole as required by rule 37 CFR 1.104(e). In this case, the substance of applicant’s remarks filed on May 27, 2025, point out the reason claims are patentable over the prior art of record (see MPEP 1302.14).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625