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 Claims 1-24 have been examined. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claim s 1 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of pending Application No. 18/039264 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of Application No. 18/039264 recites almost the same limitations . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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 1-2 4 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. In the instant case, claims 1-1 2 are directed to a method and claims 1 2 -2 4 are directed to a system. T herefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. The claims directed to receiving information, analyzing information and providing the result which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “ receiving …a voice sample…; extracting…feature value from the voice sample…; determining…diabetic status prediction…; output…prediction… ” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test ( See MPEP 2106 ) because the claims involve a series of steps of receiving information, extracting data from the received information, determining by analyzing the extracted information and output the result of analys i s which is a mental process perform in human mind or by a human using pen and paper. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea ( See MPEP 2106.04(a) ). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test ( See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claims such as, diabetic status prediction model, memory, and processor merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the diabetic status prediction model, memory, and processor perform the steps or functions of receiving information, extracting data from the received information, determining by analyzing the extracted information and output the result of analysis . The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims 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 exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test ( See MPEP 2106 ), the additional elements of diabetic status prediction model, memory, and processor , to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of receiving information, analyzing information and provi di ng the result . As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, diabetic status prediction model, memory, and processor perform the steps or functions of receiving information, extracting data from the received information, determining by analyzing the extracted information and output the result of analysis . These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of receiving information, analyzing information and provi di ng the result . Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-1 2 and 1 4 -2 4 further describe the abstract idea of receiving information, analyzing information and provi di ng the result . Specifically, claims 2-3, 15-16 further discloses the features values which is part of abstract idea, claims 4-7 and 17-20 describing processing of the voice samples which is part of the abstract idea. Claims 8-12 and 21-24 describing predication values by utilizing additional element which is also part of the abstract idea of receiving information, analyzing information and providing the result which is a mental process perform in human mind or by a human using pen and paper . The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Fossat (WO2022/109713). With respect to claims 1 and 13 Fossat discloses: providing, at a memory, a diabetic status prediction model (See Claim 1) ; receiving, at a processor in communication with the memory, a voice sample from the subject (See Claim 1) ; extracting, at the processor, at least one voice biomarker feature value from the voice sample for at least one predetermined voice biomarker feature (See claim 1) ; determining, at the processor, the type-Il (T2DM) diabetic status prediction for the subject based on the at least one voice biomarker feature value and the diabetic status prediction model (See Claim 1 , para 345 , 450-451, 458 ) ; and outputting, at an output device, the type-Il (T2DM) diabetic status prediction for the subject or an output based on the diabetic status prediction (See claim 1 and para 344-345 ) . With respect to claims 2 and 14 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: wherein each of the at least one voice biomarker feature value is selected from the group comprising: a statistical feature category, a shimmer feature category, and a jitter feature category (See paragraph 66). With respect to claims 3 and 15 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: the statistical feature category comprises a mean pitch feature value, a pitch standard deviation feature value, a mean intensity feature value, an intensity standard deviation feature value and a harmonic-to-noise ratio feature value; the shimmer feature category comprises a localShimmer feature value, a localdbShimmer feature value, an apq3Shimmer feature value, an apq5Shimmer feature value, and an apq11Shimmer feature value; and- the jitter feature category comprises a localiitter feature value, a localabsJitter feature value, a rapJitter feature value and a ppq5Jitter feature value. (See paragraph s 79, 446, 461). With respect to claims 4 and 16 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: preprocessing, at the processor, the voice sample by: storing, at a database in communication with the processor, a plurality of historical voice samples of the subject; and- averaging the voice sample based on at least one of the plurality of historical voice samples of the subject (See paragraph 59, 70). With respect to claims 5 and 17 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: wherein the voice sample comprises a predetermined phrase vocalized by the subject; and the voice sample is received from a user device in network communication with the processor. (See paragraph 28). With respect to claims 6 and 18 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: wherein the predetermined phrase is displayed to the subject on a display device of the user device (See paragraph 2 9 ). With respect to claims 7 and 19 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: transmitting, to the user device in network communication with the processor, the type-Il (T2DM) diabetic status prediction for the subject, wherein the outputting of the diabetic status prediction for the subject occurs at the user device (See paragraph s 26, 46 , 114). With respect to claims 8 and 20 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: wherein the diabetic status prediction comprises a categorical prediction (See paragraph s 36, 72). With respect to claims 9 and 21 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: wherein the categorical prediction is one selected from the group of: a type-Il (T2DM) diabetic category, and a normal category. (See paragraph 36). With respect to claims 10 and 22 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: wherein the determining the diabetic status prediction for the subject is based on at least one selected from the group of: vocal parameter data of the subject, age data of the subject, and Body Mass Index (BMI) data of the subject (See paragraph s 458, 467-468). With respect to claims 1 1 and 2 3 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: wherein the diabetic status prediction model comprises at least one selected from the group of a Logistic Regression (LR) model, a Naive Bayes (NB) model, and a Support Vector Machine (SVM) model. (See paragraphs 41, 42, 411). With respect to claims 1 2 and 2 4 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: wherein the diabetic status prediction model comprises an ensemble model, the ensemble model comprising averaging all the prediction probabilities for an individual, averaging a voice prediction result with a T2DM prevalence at a participant age, averaging the voice prediction result with the T2DM prevalence at a participant BMI, and/or a combination thereof. (See paragraphs 24 and claim 10). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ZESHAN QAYYUM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3323 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT John W Hayes can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6708 . 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. /ZESHAN QAYYUM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697