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 .
Claims 1-2, 17, 22 and 40 have been amended. Claims 41-42 and 76 have been cancelled. Claims 6, 9-12, 18-21, 23-25, 27-29 and 43-75 were previously cancelled.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 13-17, 22, 26 and 40 are pending.
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 1-5, 7-8, 13-17, 22, 26 and 40 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.
Step 1
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 13-17, 22 and 26 are drawn to a system for implementing intervention treatment regimens for a population of subjects which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claim 40 is drawn to a non-transitory medium (Examiner notes that the storage medium is executed on a server device.) for implementing intervention treatment regimens for a population of subjects which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A | Prong One
Claims 1 of Group I recites a computer system comprising:
one or more processing units;
and a memory coupled to at least one processing unit of the one or more processing units, the memory storing at least one program for execution by the at least one processing unit, the at least one program comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processing units, cause the computer system to (MPEP § 2106.05 (f), apply it and MPEP § 2106.05 (g), insignificant extra solution activity):
for each respective subject in a plurality of subjects, wherein the plurality of subjects comprises more than 100 subjects:
(A) receiving, in electronic form at the computer system (MPEP § 2106.05 (f), apply it), a respective first alert from a respective client device associated with a respective subject indicating that the respective subject has initiated a corresponding method, the corresponding method comprising:
receiving, in electronic form at the respective client device (MPEP § 2106.05 (f), apply it), a corresponding first plurality of responses of the respective subject when provided a first questionnaire at a respective first time, wherein:
each respective response in the corresponding first plurality of responses is associated with a corresponding value, and
the corresponding first plurality of responses comprises:
a corresponding first set of responses associated with an ecological mood of the respective subject,
a corresponding second set of responses indicative of whether the respective subject exhibits a depressive disorder or an anxiety disorder,
a corresponding third set of responses indicative of a stress reaction of the respective subject,
a corresponding fourth set of responses signifying a self-reported resilience of the respective subject,
a corresponding fifth set of responses indicative of a general wellness state of the respective subject,
a corresponding sixth set of responses indicative of whether the respective subject exhibits an alcohol disorder, and
a corresponding seventh set of responses that characterizes a state of spirituality of the respective subject;
applying, at the respective client device or the computer system (MPEP § 2106.05 (f), apply it), the corresponding first plurality of responses to a first set of models to determine a baseline resilience of the respective subject at the respective first time, wherein the first set of models comprises a first cohort-based questionnaire response normalization model configured to normalize the corresponding first plurality of responses relative to stored questionnaire response data of the plurality of subjects;
generating, for the respective subject, a corresponding interactive digital journal associated with the respective subject, the corresponding interactive journal:
providing the respective subject access to a corresponding intervention treatment regimen designed to improve the resilience of the respective subject, and
being configured to chart a progress of the respective subject through the corresponding intervention treatment regimen relative to the baseline resilience by capturing:
a corresponding subjective narration, in electronic form at the respective client device (MPEP § 2106.05 (f), apply it), describing exposure to the corresponding intervention treatment regimen, and
a corresponding objective feedback based on a corresponding second plurality of responses of the respective subject when provided, in electronic form (MPEP § 2106.05 (f), apply it), a second questionnaire during the exposure to the corresponding intervention treatment regimen, wherein:
the second questionnaire includes some or all of a plurality of questions from the first questionnaire and the objective feedback is generated by:
applying the second plurality of responses to the first set of models to determine a post-exposure resilience; and
comparing the post-exposure resilience to the baseline resilience to determine a graphical resilience change metric, and
exposing the respective subject to the corresponding intervention treatment regimen, wherein the corresponding intervention treatment regimen comprises a corresponding plurality of curricula,
each respective curriculum in the corresponding plurality of curricula:
is associated with a unique factorization of a respective resilience of the respective subject into a plurality of distinct resilience components determined by the first set of models and, comprises
(i) a unique compilation of digital media configured to improve an ability of the respective subject associated with the unique factorization of the respective resilience of the respective subject, and
(ii) a corresponding set of instructions for the respective subject to interact with reality, wherein selection of at least one curriculum from the corresponding plurality of curricula is based on at least one of the distinct resilience components determined by the first set of models, and wherein the corresponding plurality of curricula comprises:
a first curriculum associated with a cognitive appraisal of the respective subject,
a second curriculum associated with confronting a first locus of fear experienced by the respective subject,
a third curriculum associated with an environmental reality system determined, at least in part, by the respective subject,
a fourth curriculum associated with a plurality of biological factors of the respective subject;
a fifth curriculum associated with confronting a second locus of purpose of the respective subject; and
(B) update a respective user profile associated with the respective subject, in response to the first alert to store the baseline resilience generated by the first set of models (§ 2106.05 (g), insignificant extra solution activity);
(C) receive, in electronic form at the computer system (MPEP § 2106.05 (f), apply it), a respective second alert from the respective client device associated with the respective subject indicating that the respective subject has concluded the corresponding method and, in response to the respective second alert:
Determine, based on predefined curriculum criteria stored in memory, that the respective subject has completed at least one curriculum in the corresponding plurality of curricula; and
(D) update the respective user profile associated with the respective subject in response to the determination of curriculum completion to store a curriculum completion status and the objective feedback generated by the first set of models (§ 2106.05 (g), insignificant extra solution activity), thereby implementing the corresponding intervention treatment regimen for the respective subject.
The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract are underlined and are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Independent claim 40 recites substantially the same abstract idea and additional elements found in claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2-5, 7-8, 13-17, 22 and 26 include other limitations, for example Claim 2 recites wherein the corresponding intervention treatment regimen for the respective subject is self-guided by the respective subject, Claim 3 recites wherein the corresponding value is in a range of from 0 to 4, from 0 to 5, or from 0 to 10, Claim 4 recites wherein the corresponding value is categorical, Claim 5 recites wherein the first questionnaire comprises a first set of questions indicative of whether the respective subject exhibits a depressive indicator, Claim 7 recites wherein the first questionnaire comprises a second set of questions configured to identify a generalized anxiety disorder exhibited by the respective subject, Claim 8 recites wherein the corresponding first plurality of responses comprises an eighth set of responses associated with a demographic status of the respective subject, Claim 13 recites wherein the applying the corresponding first plurality of responses to the first set of models comprises applying each respective response in the corresponding first plurality of responses to a corresponding model in the first set of models, Claim 14 recites wherein the first set of models comprises a second Likert scale model, Claim 15 recites wherein the baseline resilience of the respective subject comprises an indication of an adverse condition affecting the respective subject, Claim 16 recites wherein the corresponding set of instructions for the respective subject to interact with reality comprises a first instruction for the respective subject to input a respective subjective narration by the respective subject, Claim 17 recites wherein the corresponding subjective narration by the respective subject of the exposure to the intervention treatment regimen comprises a duration of a disruptive event producing adversity, a severity of the disruptive event producing adversity, an outcome of disruptive event producing adversity, or a combination thereof, Claim 22 recites wherein the charting the progress of the respective subject further comprises providing a graphical chart comprising: a first axis by a first segmentation based on a period of time, a second axis by a second segmentation based on a respective set of responses in the corresponding first plurality of responses comprises provided by the respective subject, and one or more data plots, wherein each respective data plot in the one or more data plots (i) represents a corresponding set of responses in a corresponding second plurality of responses of the respective subject when provided the second questionnaire during the period of time, and (ii) populates a unique location within an area formed by the first axis and the second axis, and Claim 26 recites wherein the first curriculum associated with the cognitive appraisal of the respective subject is configured in accordance with a respective life-stage of the respective subject, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1 and 40.
Step 2A | Prong Two
Furthermore, Claims 1-5, 7-8, 13-17, 22, 26 and 40 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of one or more processing units and a memory coupled to at least one processing unit of the one or more processing units, client device and computer system, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs [0011], [0044] and [0050] of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea – for example, the recitation of storing data, which amounts to an insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B
Furthermore, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs [0011], [0044] and [0050] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. computer system, processor, memory, client device) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. storing data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare management);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the current invention merely recites the storing of program data on a database and/or electronic memory.
Dependent Claims 2-5, 7-8, 13-17, 22 and 26 include other limitations, but they do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in the independent claim 1.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-5, 7-8, 13-17, 22, 26 and 40 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the subject matter eligibility rejection should be withdrawn. Specifically, Applicant asserts that claim 1 “recites a specifically constrained, rule-governed computational control architecture in which model-defined outputs deterministically control downstream system behavior (Remarks, page 15)” and “does not merely automate human judgment; it replaces subjective therapeutic discretion with a deterministic, model-governed state machine that governs curriculum instantiation and longitudinal recalculation (Remarks, pages 15-16).” Examiner maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea. The fact that they are implemented on a computer does not make them any less abstract. The additional elements recited in the claim are either recited at an apply it level or are considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed towards organizing human activity. Examiner disagrees as they claims recite using a multitude of questionnaires and stored information on the questionnaires in order to help in supporting a patient’s mental health. This is abstract. The pipeline used does not take the claim language outside of being abstract.
Applicant argues that the instant claims recite “rule-based automation that replaces subjective evaluation with constrained computational processing, analogous to the rule-based automation found patent-eligible in McRO (Remarks, page 17).” The instant claims are not the same as McRO. In McRO, the computer-based rules allowed the computer to do something that was not possible prior in a computer. In other words, it solved a technical problem of lip synching on a computer. Here, there is no technical problem. Providing mental health support is a business problem particular to healthcare.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant asserts that the “amended claim clearly integrates any such exception into a practical application (Remarks, pages 17-18),” citing to limitations regarding “Cohort-Based Normalization Using Stored Population Data,” “Model-Driven Resilience Factorization and Curriculum Selection,” “Closed-Loop Reprocessing and Graphical Resilience Change Metric,” and “Persistent Profile Updates Based on Stored Completion Criteria (Remarks, pages 17-18).” These features are all considered part of the abstract idea. The abstract idea cannot be used to integrate itself into a practical application. Per MPEP § 2106, Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I supra, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h).
MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I) states limitations that the courts have found indicative of an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, 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).
The additional elements in the claims do not rise the level of a practical application.
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed
in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Specifically, in the instant case, the additional elements are either recited at an apply it level or recite insignificant extra-solution activity.
Applicant argues that the claims improve “computer-implemented resilience modeling architectures by imposing specific structural constraints on data normalization, model reuse, component-based control, and persistent state management (Remarks, page 19).” Examiner maintains that the only improvement resulting from the claim, if any, is an improvement to the abstract idea itself. The computer itself is not improved as a result of the recited abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant argues that since claim 1 requires “in combination, (i) cohort-scale stored datasets; (ii) a normalization model configured relative to stored data; (iii) model-derived resilience component factorization; (iv) deterministic curriculum selection based on computed components; (v) longitudinal recomputation using the same model architecture; and (vi) criteria-based persistent state updating” it amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Similar to the practical application step above, the focus is on the additional elements. The limitations argued by the Applicant are part of the abstract idea and therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Lastly, Applicant argues “The Office Action does not provide evidence that this specific ordered combination was well-understood, routine, and conventional. Under Berkheimer, whether an ordered combination is conventional is a factual determination requiring evidentiary support.”
A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Examiner has provided Berkheimer evidence for the additional elements in the above rejection in accordance with the MPEP. Examiner is not required to provide Berkheimer evidence for limitations that are part of the abstract idea as they are not additional elements. Therefore, this argument is also not persuasive.
The claims remain rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is (303)297-4782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 MT.
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, Jason Dunham can be reached at (571)272-8109. 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.
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686