DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This action is in reply to the filed on 3/30/2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 3, 31, 38 and 55 have been amended.
Claims 2, 11-30, 35 and 39-54 have been cancelled.
Claim 1, 3-10, 31-38 and 55 currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The Applicant’s amendments, and cancellation, of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. Said amendments, and cancellation(s), are not sufficient to overcome the rejection previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. §101. As such, said rejection is herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Karanam et al. (US 2020/0012959) and Voros et al. (US 2019/0391131) teach a computer-implemented method for health condition prediction. Karanam and Voros et al. do not teach “a computer-implemented method for health condition prediction," "collecting, by one or more computing devices, data from a plurality of individuals, the data comprising, for each individual, user-generated content and/or biometric data...,” etc. Therefore, the Applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection.
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.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0015]) the need to be able to deriving health indicators based at least partially from user-generated content and/or biometric data. So a need exists to organize these human interactions by health monitoring and evaluation using the steps of “collecting data, preprocessing content, generating records, executing trained machine learning models, ranking individuals, iteratively updating trained models,” etc. Applicant’s method is therefore a mental process and a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 31-38 and 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 31 and 55 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “health monitoring and evaluation,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0002]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-10, 31-38 and 55 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, method for performing the steps of “collecting data, preprocessing content, generating records, executing trained machine learning models, ranking individuals, iteratively updating trained models,” etc., that is “health monitoring and evaluation,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-10, 31-38 and 55 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. user devices, personal devices, health management servers, biometric measurement devices, networks, processors, memories (Applicant’s Specification [0029]-[0033], [0083]), etc.) to perform steps of “collecting data, preprocessing content, generating records, executing trained machine learning models, ranking individuals, iteratively updating trained models,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 31-38 and 55 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations (i.e. user devices, personal devices, health management servers, biometric measurement devices, networks, processors, memories, etc.) only store and retrieve information and perform repetitive calculations, and these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (Berkheimer- Court Decisions). These court decisions indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. user devices, personal devices, health management servers, biometric measurement devices, networks, processors, memories, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0029]-[0033], [0083], Applicant’s specification describes conventional computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “user devices, personal devices, health management servers, biometric measurement devices, networks, processors, memories,” etc. to perform the functions of “collecting data, preprocessing content, generating records, executing trained machine learning models, ranking individuals, iteratively updating trained models,” etc. The recited “user devices, personal devices, health management servers, biometric measurement devices, networks, processors, memories,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1, 3-10, 31-38 and 55 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 3-10, 32-34 and 36-38 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 3-10, 32-34 and 36-38 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 3-10, 32-34 and 36-38 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claim(s) 1 and 31.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/30/2026 with respect to claims 1, 3-10, 31-38 and 55 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed 3/30/2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/30/2026 with respect to claims 1, 3-10, 31-38 and 55 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that (A) the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to statutory matter.
101 Responses
As per Applicant’s argument (A), Applicant’s remarks with regard to the statutory nature of Applicant’s claimed invention are addressed above in the Office Action.
Rehash
Applicant's remarks and arguments merely rehash issues addressed in the Office Action mailed 1/15/2026 and incorporated herein.
Applicant’s Amendments
Applicant amended claims recite “the data comprising…user-generated content and biometric data,” “normalizing, by a data analysis engine…,” “generating…a risk input record,” “executing…a trained machine learning model,” “ranking the plurality of individuals into a priority list…,” “transmitting the priority list to a clinician-facing user interface,” “iteratively updating the trained machine learning model...” These are information processing steps that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea and do not move Applicant’s invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Data Processing Step
Applicant’s amended steps of “the data comprising…user-generated content and biometric data,” “normalizing, by a data analysis engine…,” “generating…a risk input record,” “executing…a trained machine learning model,” “ranking the plurality of individuals into a priority list…,” “transmitting the priority list to a clinician-facing user interface,” “iteratively updating the trained machine learning model...,” are abstract computational steps that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea. In Electric Power Group the collection, manipulation and display of data has been found to be an abstract process. When claims, such as Applicant’s claims, are “directed to an abstract idea” and “merely requir[e] generic computer implementation,” they “do[] not move into [§] 101 eligibility territory.” buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, analysis of information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, is essentially a mental processes within the abstract-idea category (Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354). Further, Applicant appears to be claiming generic computer implementation of a certain method of organsing human interaction. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Truncated Claims
The Examiner’s characterization of Appellant’s claims is fully consistent with Appellant’s Specification, including Appellant’s claim language. “An abstract idea can generally be descried at different levels of abstraction. (See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as a mental process and/or comparing/storing data. It could be described in other ways, including, articulating the abstract idea at a higher level of abstraction as indicated in the specification… Such difference need not and, in this case does not, “impact the patentability analysis.” See id. At 1241.)
2019 PEG Neither Limiting nor Exhaustive
Further, the enumerated examples in the 2019 PEG are neither limiting nor exhaustive. They are exemplary. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Integration into a Practical Application
Integration into a practical application requires additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (e.g. Enfish, McRO and Vanda) (2019 PEG).
Applicant’s “user devices, personal devices, health management servers, biometric measurement devices, networks, processors, memories” is/are not an additional element(s) that reflects in the an improvement in the functioning of a computer, is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis, is/are not an additional element(s) that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or things, and is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment for the reasons explained in the 101 rejection above. Applicant’s “user devices, personal devices, health management servers, biometric measurement devices, networks, processors, memories” is/are merely tools used by Applicant to implement data processing. Data processing is an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Technical Solution
Applicant’s claims do not provide a technical solution to a problem rooted in computer technology. The mere application of generic computer components that are recited at a high degree of generality to an abstract idea does not amount to a technical solution to a problem rooted in computer technology. Additionally, simply adding insignificant data gathering steps that are tied to another technical field does not amount to a technical solution to a problem rooted in computer technology.
The claims are not directed to any technological solution other than computer data processing of healthcare data. As described above, the claims are directed to an abstract idea such as “an idea of itself” in Alice related to mental processes and a certain method of organizing human interactions. This abstract idea is only generally linked to a particular technological environment by reciting the generic computer components that are well known in the art as acknowledged by Applicant’s specification.
Concrete Automated System Action
Applicant’s Concrete Automated System Action are data processing steps that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
McRo, Inc.
Further, the claims in McRo, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., are directed to an improvement in computer animation. The invention employs a computer to perform a “distinct” process to automate a task previously performed by humans. However, the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, are what improves the existing technological process by allowing automation of tasks. Simply adding a generic computing device that performs routine and conventional functions or presenting abstract claims that are directed to generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity (i.e. collecting data, preprocessing content, generating records, executing trained machine learning models, ranking individuals, iteratively updating trained models, etc.) is not equivalent or similar to addressing a computer animation challenge as is the case in McRo, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. While the claims are directed to a process that is performed on a computer, they are not directed to a computer animation challenge. In fact, the claims are not directed to computer animation at all or functions that are particular to computer animation as is the case in the claims of McRo, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. Therefore, because the claims fail to provide a technical solution to any computer animation challenges, the ordered combination of limitations do not amount to significantly more than a method of managing interactions between people and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. As explained above, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Further, as explained above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Inventive Concept
Further, Applicant’s claims do not recite an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patentable invention. When claims, such as Applicant’s claims, are “directed to an abstract idea” and “merely requir[e] generic computer implementation,” they “do[] not move into [§] 101 eligibility territory.” buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Inventive Concept Coincides with the Abstract Idea
Applicant’s alleged inventive concept is coincident with the abstract idea itself.
August 4, 2025 Memorandum
The Examiner thanks the Applicant remarks regarding the advisory August 4, 2025 Memorandum. The Examiner notes that the August 4, 2025 Memorandum contained advisory remarks but the remarks did not change the nature of examination of Applications under 35 USC 101. The Examiner asserts that the Examiner’s analysis and rejection of the Applicant’s claims under 35 USC 101 is compliant with the Office’s examination procedures under the MPEP. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) for 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 for 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 extension free 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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, ROBERT W. MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights