DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 12/31/25. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 11-13, and 15-16 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 on 12/31/25 has been entered.
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, 5-6, 11-13, and 15-16 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.
35 USC 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. As explained by the courts, these “four categories together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of Section 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Applicant’s claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 1-3, 5-6, are drawn to a method, and claims 11-13, and 15-16 are drawn to a system.
Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not complete the eligibility analysis. Claims drawn only to an abstract idea, a natural phenomenon, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection. As described in MPEP 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l,134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
In 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) prepared revised guidance (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility. The framework for this revised guidance, which sets forth the procedures for determining whether a patent claim or patent application claim is directed to a judicial exception (laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas), is described in MPEP sections 2106.03 and 2106.04.
As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance explains that abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. Moreover, this guidance explains that a patent claim or patent application claim that recites a judicial exception is not ‘‘directed to’’ the judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception. A claim that recites a judicial exception, but is not integrated into a practical application, is directed to the judicial exception under Step 2A and must then be evaluated under Step 2B (inventive concept) to determine the subject matter eligibility of the claim.
Step 2A asks: Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? If so, is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception? A claim recites a judicial exception when a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms “set forth” and “describe” are thus both equated with “recite”, their different language is intended to indicate that there are different ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr set forth a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, while the claims in Mayo set forth laws of nature in the wherein clause, meaning that the claims in those cases contained discrete claim language that was identifiable as a judicial exception. The claims in Alice Corp., however, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words “intermediated” or “settlement.” A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
In the instant case, claims 1-3, 5-6, 11-13, and 15-16 recite(s) methods and system for certain methods of organizing human activities, which is subject matter that falls within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas described in MPEP 2106.04 (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) Certain methods of organizing human activities includes fundamental economic practices, like insurance; commercial interactions (i.e. legal obligations, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). Organizing human activity also encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.) The recited methods and system are drawn to conducting an assessment of a patient’s condition (i.e. a pressure injury/wound) with a corresponding treatment recommendation. (i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people)
In particular, the claim 1 recites a method for:
receiving a visualization of the pressure injury displaying an initial question box and a selectable initial answer icon, wherein the initial question box comprises an initial question in a simple yes or no format;
receiving a first input from a user on the initial answer icon to select yes or no based on the initial question;
determining, in response to the first input, a second question, wherein the second question is in a simple yes or no format;
displaying, in response to the determining, a second question box comprising the second question and a selectable second answer icon;
receiving a second input from a user via the touchscreen display on the second answer icon to select yes or no;
determining, based on the first input and the second input, a stage of the pressure injury;
displaying the determined stage in a stage box and a medical definition associated with the determined stage in a medical definition box such that the stage box and the medical definition box are displayed simultaneously
Similarly, claim 11 recites a system configured to:
receive a visualization of the pressure injury;
display an initial question box and a selectable initial answer icon, wherein the initial question box comprises an initial question in a simple yes or no format;
receive a first input from a user via the touchscreen display on the initial answer icon to select yes or no based on the initial question;
determine, in response to the first input, a second question, wherein the second question is in a simple yes or no format;
display, in response to the determining, a second question box comprising the second question and a selectable second answer icon;
receive a second input from a user via the touchscreen display on the second answer icon to select yes or no;
determine, based on the first input and the second input, a stage of the pressure injury;
display the determined stage in a stage box and a medical definition associated with the determined stage in a medical definition box such that the stage box and the medical definition box are displayed simultaneously ;
administering a treatment based on the displayed stage.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim language does not recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); see also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I-II)). Moreover, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claimed invention does not: apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); or apply or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment see MPEP 2106.05(e). (Considerations for integration into a practical application in Step 2A, prong two and for recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception in Step 2B)
While abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patenting by themselves, claims that integrate these exceptions into an inventive concept are thereby transformed into patent-eligible inventions. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (2012)). Thus, the second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Id. 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., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute Sections 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under Section 101”). As made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the Section 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp.,838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9).
As described in MPEP 2106.05, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)). Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
It is noted that the language of claims 1 and 11 has been amended to further recite: “wherein the medical definition comprises a description of at least one of characteristics of the determined stage or information relevant to the diagnosis or treatment of the determined stage.” However, the details regarding type of data displayed do not alter the interpretation of the claim. The additional details are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 additionally recites “a touchscreen display.” Claim 11 recites “an electronic computer system,” and “a touchscreen display.” However, the additional components is/are generic components that perform functions well-understood, routine and conventional activities that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The generic nature of the underlying system components is underscored by the brief and broad language describing the system in applicant’s disclosure. (par. 27, par.29: To conduct a staging process, a clinician 110 may access the pressure injury application 150 such by a computer 130 or other medical device. The pressure injury application 150 provides various prompts which the clinician 110 answers with simple answers, such as through an input device such as a mouse, keyboard, touchscreen, or other input device.) More specifically, the description of the invention in the disclosure underscores that applicant's perceived invention/ novelty focuses on the computerized implementation of the abstract idea, not the underlying structure of the additional (generic) components.
It should be further noted that the courts have recognized certain computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)). These limitations include the following features, which are included in the language of claims 1-20:
- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
- Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
- Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Because Applicant’s claimed invention recites a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, the claimed invention is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 are dependent from Claim 1 and include(s) all the limitations of claim(s) 1. However, the additional limitations of the claims 2-3 and 5-6 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. More specifically, claims 2-3 and 5-6 recite limitations further defining extra- solution activities (e.g. detailing the displaying of information) or further defining the abstract activities (i.e. details regarding the types of questions, medical information; additional steps of the medical assessment) Therefore, claim(s) 2-3 and 5-6 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 12-13 and 15-16 are dependent from Claim 11 and include(s) all the limitations of claim(s) 11. However, the additional limitations of the claims 12-13 and 12-13 and 15-16 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. More specifically, claims 12-13 and 15-16 recite limitations further defining extra- solution activities (e.g. detailing the displaying of information) or further defining the abstract activities (i.e. details regarding the types of questions, medical information; additional steps of the medical assessment) Therefore, claim(s) 12-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 11-13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtin (US 2021/0353214 A1) in view of Alhimiri (WO 2016/201212 A1).
Claims 1 and 11 Curtin teaches a discloses system for staging a pressure injury, comprising:
an electronic computer system comprising a touchscreen display configured to receive user inputs; (par. 92; par. 227-touchscreen)
wherein the electronic computer system is configured to perform a method for staging a pressure injury, comprising:
receiving a visualization of the pressure injury (par. 32-receiving a digital image of the particular wound; analyzing the digital image of the particular wound to identify one or more decubitus ulcer criteria) displaying an initial question box and a selectable initial answer icon on a touchscreen display, wherein the initial question box comprises an initial question in a simple yes or no format; (par. 137-140: The PUD tool asks “Is this ulcer caused by pressure and/or pressure in conjunction with shear,” as shown in screen 517 in FIG. 9. The user generally selects “Yes” or “No” to answer the question. For a pre-existing ulcer in the system 100 or 200, however, step 416 will be skipped automatically if the user previously answered “Yes.”; par. 227-the graphical user interface receives user input will depend on the computer or device used and the type of computer application or the device. In some instances, for example, on touch screen enabled devices, such as laptops, tablets and smartphones, or with voice dictation devices, the graphical user interface 118 may be activated via touch and the user may select a check box, or type in a form field directly on the screen 512.)
receiving a first input from a user via the touchscreen display on the initial answer icon to select yes or no based on the initial question; (par. 166-168; par. 227: the graphical user interface receives user input will depend on the computer or device used and the type of computer application or the device. In some instances, for example, on touch screen enabled devices, such as laptops, tablets and smartphones, or with voice dictation devices, the graphical user interface 118 may be activated via touch and the user may select a check box, or type in a form field directly on the screen 512; Par. 231-as shown in FIG. 9, with check boxes for the user to check either “Yes” or “No.” In other examples, a user may be prompted to select “Yes” or “No” in a drop-down menu, or via other means)
determining, in response to the first input, a second question, wherein the second question is in a simple yes or no format; (fig. 4A-D: 420, 428, 434-438: yes or no response determines next question; see also par. 147-154:)
displaying, in response to the determining, a second question box comprising the second question and a selectable second answer icon; (Fig. 11-Figs 12A-C; par. 150-155)
receiving a second input from a user via the touchscreen display on the second answer icon; (Fig. 9; Fig. 10A-C-receives first and second user input regarding wound assessment; par. 227-the graphical user interface receives user input will depend on the computer or device used and the type of computer application or the device. In some instances, for example, on touch screen enabled devices, such as laptops, tablets and smartphones, or with voice dictation devices, the graphical user interface 118 may be activated via touch and the user may select a check box, or type in a form field directly on the screen 512.)
determining, based on the first input and the second input, a stage of the pressure injury; (Fig. 4B-C: 430; 438;446; 454; par. 145-149-input/responses provided by user are used to stage the wound)
displaying the determined stage in a stage box and a medical definition associated with the determined stage in a medical definition box on the touchscreen display, (Fig. 7-displays previous stage and Dx code; Fig. 15A-C; Fig. 16-displays assessed stage and Dx code; par. 156-158) such that the stage box and the medical definition box are displayed simultaneously on the touchscreen display, wherein the medical definition comprises a description of at least one of characteristics of the determined stage or information relevant to the diagnosis or treatment of the determined stage (Fig. 15A-C; Fig. 16-displays assessed stage and Dx code; par. 142--the Diagnostic code is deemed to be “information relevant to the diagnosis or treatment of the determined stage: For example, Table 3 shows a list of available ICD-10 codes from which the user may select, namely, the ICD-10 codes currently ranging from L89.000-L89.95. The skilled artisan will appreciate that the ICD-10 codes shown in Table 3 are exemplary, and may at some point be updated to ICD-11 codes and the like. )
and administering a treatment based on the displayed stage (par. 24-26-treatment recommendation corresponding to the determined stage displayed; par. 208-210-treatments which may be administered according to stage)
Claim 1 further recites: receiving a second input from a user via the touchscreen display on the second answer icon to select yes or no.
Curtin discloses a method substantially as recited, and discloses receiving first and second user input/responses. Curtin does not expressly disclose that the second input includes a “second answer icon to select yes or no.”
Alhimiri discloses a method further comprising: receiving a second input from a user via the touchscreen display on the second answer icon to select yes or no. (Fig. 19A-asking user about the presence of symptoms listed; par. 111- screen illustration is generally shown at 258 of a patient information entry screen associated with the variant of Fig. 18 and which illustrates a series of fields which can be selected checked by the patient. These include individual Yes (check mark), No (X) or question (?) fields for selected symptoms) At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method of Curtin to include additional questions with yes/no icons. One would have been motivated to include this feature to ensure that patient information is promptly and easily gathered and to facilitate an efficient transfer of knowledge during patient care.
Claims 2, 12 Curtin does not disclose a method wherein the initial question box, the initial answer icon, the second question box, and the second answer icon are displayed simultaneously on the touchscreen display in.
Alhimiri teaches a method of displaying multiple questions and answer icons simultaneously. (Fig. 19A; par. 111-112: screen illustration is generally shown at 258 of a patient information entry screen associated with the variant of Fig. 18 and which illustrates a series of fields which can be selected checked by the patient. These include individual Yes (check mark), No (X) or question (?) fields for selected symptoms; See also Fig. 19B1-2-mulitple questions and answer icons displayed simultaneously; par. 153-touch screen interface for input) At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method/system of Curtin with the teaching of Alhimiri to include displaying an initial question box, the initial answer icon, the second question box, and the second answer icon simultaneously on the touchscreen display. As suggested by Alhimiri, one would have been motivated to include this feature to save time and increase accuracy by avoiding asking and answering of duplicative questions and duplicative inputting of descriptions of patient symptoms, and to simplify and standardize communications between the patient, provider and healthcare managers (Alhimiri: par. 187)
Claims 3, 13 Curtin and Alhimiri in combination disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the initial answer icon, the second question box, and the second answer icon are displayed as explained in the rejection of claim 2.
Curtin teaches also discloses connecting question and answers by arrows to visually show a path of the questions and answers through a flowchart. (Fig. 4A-D;) At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Curtin and Alhimiri in combination with the teaching include arrows to connect question and answers by arrows to visually show a path of the questions and answers through a flowchart. One would have been motivated to include this feature to simplify a patient assessment and to allow the user to visualize the connection between responses/ user input and recommended next steps.
Claims 5, 15 Curtin discloses wherein displaying the determined stage in the stage box and the medical definition associated with the determined stage in the medical definition box further comprises displaying a medical visualization corresponding to the determined stage. (fig. 15A-A; Fig. 16)
Claim 6, 16 Curtin discloses wherein the initial question box and the second question box are selectable. (Fig. 9, figs 10A-C; user may select response, maximize/minimize and close window/boxes)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101. Applicant argues that the claimed invention integrates any abstract idea into a practical application.
In response, the Examiner disagrees. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim language does not: recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)); apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); or apply or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment see MPEP 2106.05(e).
In accordance with MPEP 2106.05 (a), if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.
It is respectfully submitted that applicant’s argued improvement represents an improvement to the abstract idea. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. (921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2019) Note, there is no requirement for the judicial exception to provide the improvement. Applicant seems to argue that the claimed invention presents information in an improved manner. This is an improvement to the abstract idea, not to an improvement to the technology.
(B) Applicant argues that the amended features are sufficient to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101.
In response, the examiner disagrees. While the claim amendments are noted, the additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The limitation “wherein the medical definition comprises a description of at least one of characteristics of the determined stage or information relevant to the diagnosis or treatment of the determined stage” merely defines the information presented in the display step. No additional manipulation and no technological improvements are provided.
Additionally, while the independent claims have been amended to recite “administering a treatment based on the displayed stage,” the amended claim language does not recite that a particular treatment is administered. The treatment or prophylaxis limitation must be “particular,” i.e., specifically identified so that it does not encompass all applications of the judicial exception(s). For example, consider a claim that recites mentally analyzing information to identify if a patient has a genotype associated with poor metabolism of beta blocker medications. This falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG. The claim also recites “administering a lower than normal dosage of a beta blocker medication to a patient identified as having the poor metabolizer genotype.” This administration step is particular, and it integrates the mental analysis step into a practical application. Conversely, consider a claim that recites the same abstract idea and “administering a suitable medication to a patient.” This administration step is not particular, and is instead merely instructions to “apply” the exception in a generic way. Thus, the administration step does not integrate the analysis step into a practical application.
(C) Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the claim limitations of the amended claim language.
In response, the examiner disagrees and has provided additional citations from the Curtain reference to address the new claim language. It is noted that the amended language recites “wherein the medical definition comprises a description of at least one of characteristics of the determined stage or information relevant to the diagnosis or treatment of the determined stage.” The displayed ICD code for the pressure ulcer is information relevant to the diagnosis or treatment of the determined stage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Scheurich et al (US 20130085777 A1)-discloses a system and method wherein the medical definition of the pressure ulcer stage includes characteristics of the stage. (Fig. 8(70))
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachel L Porter whose telephone number is (571)272-6775. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6:30.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 571-270-1360. 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.
RACHEL L. PORTER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/Rachel L. Porter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684