DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 13 July 2024, claiming benefit back to 14 January 2021.
Claims 1, 4 – 10, and 12 are pending and have been examined; claims 2, 3, 11, 13, and 14 were deleted by Applicant in a Preliminary Amendment.
This action is Non-Final.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0019] of the originally filed specification recites “Fanctional Independence Measure”; Examiner believes this is meant to read “Functional Independence Measure”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the language “wherein in the learning of the learning, the prediction model is learned...”. While not necessarily incorrect, and does not rise to the level of indefiniteness, the language itself is somewhat grammatically confusing (for example, ‘learned’ is not usually used as a verb). Appropriate correction is requested.
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, 4 – 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention, when the claims are taken as a whole, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A – 1: The claims recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 recites the limitations of: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain learning data including a first index value indicating a condition of a sample patient at a first time, and a second index value indicating a condition of the sample patient at a second time that is after the first time;
and learn a prediction model for predicting a condition of a target patient at the second time on the basis of a condition of the target patient at the first time, wherein
the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to learn the prediction model so as to minimize a loss function including a term that is smaller as the change between the first index value and a third index is closer to a first change tendency, wherein the third index value indicates a condition of the sample patient at the second time that is predicted by the prediction model on the basis of the first index value, and the first change tendency indicates a change tendency of the condition from the first time to the second time.
These limitations (bolded and highlighted), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation1, covers mathematical concepts such as generating and using a model (e.g., an equation or set of equations) to determine perform a mathematical formula (e.g., minimize a loss function). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I2.
Step 2A – 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Exemplary dependent claim 1 recites the additional elements of: at least one memory configured to store instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, however these are recited a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and obtain learning data including a first index value indicating a condition of a sample patient at a first time, and a second index value indicating a condition of the sample patient at a second time that is after the first time, however this amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality (as the claim places no limits on how the data is obtained) , and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claims do not provide for or recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or 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.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims, and it has been held that “[i]n defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow.” (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350. )
Turning to the dependent claims, none of the claimed features of the dependent claims further limit the claimed invention in such a way to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter (e.g. change the scope of the claimed invention as to no longer be directed towards an abstract idea, or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se), nor do they add limitations that, when taken as a combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. In respect to exemplary dependent claims 4 – 9:
Claim 4 merely describes the received data;
Claim 5 further describes additional steps of the judicial exception;
Claim 6 further describes additional steps of the judicial exception;
Claim 7 further describes additional steps of the judicial exception;
Claims 8 and 9 further describes additional variables used in the judicial exception;
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, or the recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions previously known to the industry3 [e.g. performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data; electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks; receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data] .
Applicant’s specification, at, e.g., FIG. 1, FIG. 5, paragraphs [0022]-[0026], provides evidence of generic computer hardware performing generic, well-known, computer functions.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements, both individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the above identified abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more (e.g. improvements to another technology or technical fields, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment) than the abstract idea itself. 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 implementation4.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4 – 10, and 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Monier; Louis et al. US 20160063212 A1 System for Generating and Updating Treatment Guidelines and Estimating Effect Size of Treatment Steps
Mikami; Sawako et al. US 20180052804 A1 Learning Model Generation System, Method, And Program
Hong; L.S. Klaudyne et al. US 20190259499 A1 System And Method For Predicting Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (Sofa) Scores Using Artificial Intelligence And Machine Learning
Otsuki; Nobuhisa et al. US 20200411194 A1 Rehabilitation Support System, Prediction Device, Learning Device, Methods, And Storage Medium
Sato; Rieko et al. US 20210217509 A1 Rehabilitation Support System and Method
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN S MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5288. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6pm. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6288.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAN S MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
1 Noting that ‘learn a prediction model’ can be interpreted as find or generate or use a prediction model.
2 See also Electric Power Group v Alstom S.A. No. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. 1 August 2016), in which the court stated “Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas… In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category…”.
3 “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)”. Id, pages 10-11. “Likewise, the server fails to add an inventive concept because it is simply a generic computer that “administer[ s]” digital images using a known “arbitrary data bank system.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 45–46. But “[f]or the role of a computer in a computer-implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2359). “These steps fall squarely within our precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and a ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 1348 (“storing information” into memory, and using a computer to “translate the shapes on a physical page into typeface characters,” insufficient confer patent eligibility); Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324–25 (generic computer components such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1368 (a “database” and “a communication medium” “are all generic computer elements”); BuySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”)”. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive L.L.C., (No. 15-1372, (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016)), at *12-13.
See additionally MPEP 2106.05(d).
4 “Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted))”. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015).