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
This action is in response to the reply filed 9/17/2025.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 were amended 9/17/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: “and at least on additional data type comprising: a visual field test; a retinal nerve fiber layer scan; administration of a glaucoma medication; a surgical or laser glaucoma treatment; a clinician-defined alert or insight criteria;” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification and figures are silent on “validating that the glaucoma diagnostic data comprises at least: a minimum of two intraocular pressure measurements with different sampling times; and at least one additional data type comprising: a visual field test: a retinal nerve fiber layer scan; administration of a glaucoma medication; a surgical or laser glaucoma treatment; a clinician-defined alert or insight criteria”. The specification recites that the set of data is determined to not be medically meaningful (paragraph 47) and the specification appears to recite that determination is using a logic tree (Figure 2) rather than validation techniques. Further, the determination indicates a request for additional data including glaucoma treatment data at one or more different sampling times (paragraph 47). The specification is silent on the additional data that is the glaucoma diagnostic data to include intraocular pressure measurements with different sampling times and a clinician-defined alert or insight criteria. The intraocular pressure measurements with different sampling times is related to the clinician defined alert condition. However, the clinical defined alert condition is not recited as being a part of the determination of medically meaningful data (paragraph 82, 58, 74). The clinician defined alert condition is a function of a different output of a different mathematical function (paragraph 74) than the one used in the determination of the medically meaningful glaucoma diagnostic data (Figure 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. These dependent claims recite “wherein the electronic device is associated with the individual and the second electronic device”, however in the independent claims the second electronic device is not positively recited and is used in an “or” statement so that the dependent claims are not further limiting a claim limitation. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1-20 are drawn to a computer system, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and a method which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claims 1, 11, and 16 recite obtaining a set of data associated with an individual, wherein the set of data comprises or corresponds to a history of glaucoma diagnostic data, glaucoma treatment data or both for the individual during a time interval; determining whether the set of data is medically meaningful for the individual based at least in part validating that the glaucoma diagnostic data comprises at least: a minimum of two intraocular pressure measurements with different sampling times; and at least one additional data type comprising a visual field test; a retinal nerve fiber layer scan; administration of a glaucoma medication; a surgical or laser glaucoma treatment; a clinician-defined alert or insight criteria; when the set of data is determined to not be medically meaningful for the individual, providing, addressed, a request for additional data, wherein the additional data comprises one or more of: an additional data instance, an additional type of data that is different from types of data in the set of data, or additional glaucoma diagnostic or glaucoma treatment data at one or more different sampling times than sampling times of data instances in the set of data; and when the set data is determined to be medically meaningful for the individual: analyzing the set of data to compute analysis results; and selectively providing, addressed, feedback associated with glaucoma of the individual or glaucoma treatment of the individual, wherein the feedback is selectively provided based at least in part on analysis results.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity between a user and a healthcare provider, as reflected in the specification, which states that “This aggregated information may be reported to a user of monitoring device 110 and/or electronic device 112 (e.g., the individual). Alternatively or additionally, the history or summary report may, with user approval/authorization, be provided to a healthcare provider, such as to computer 132. Note that the history or summary report may be used in a clinical trial or in analysis of a population or group of individuals.” (see: specification paragraph 52). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address “Alternatively, when the set data is determined to be medically meaningful for the individual, computer system 130 may: analyzes the set of data to compute analysis results; and selectively provide, addressed to monitoring device 110, electronic device 112 and/or computer 132 (such as a computer associated with a clinician or a healthcare provider of the individual), feedback associated with glaucoma of the individual or glaucoma treatment of the individual, where the feedback is selectively provided based at least in part on analysis results.” (see: specification paragraph 48). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).”
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “computer system”, “interface circuit”, “computation device”, “memory”, “electronic device”, “second electronic device”, “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the obtaining and analyzing of data is performed using generic computer components with instructions are executed to perform the claimed limitations). Such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 11 and
Paragraph 15, where “When executed by the computer system, the electronic device or the second electronic device, this computer-readable storage medium causes the computer system, the electronic device or the second electronic device to perform at least some of the aforementioned operations or counterparts to at least some of the aforementioned operations. “
Paragraph 35, where “electronic device 112 may optionally communicate with computer system 130 (which may include one or more computers or servers, and which may be implemented locally or remotely to provide storage and/or analysis services) using a wired communication protocol (such as Ethernet) via network 120 and/or 122. Note that networks 120 and 122 may be the same or different networks. For example, networks 120 and/or 122 may be a LAN, an intra-net or the Internet. In some embodiments, the wired communication protocol may include a secured connection over transmission control protocol/Internet protocol (TCP/IP) using hypertext transfer protocol secure (HTTPS). Additionally, in some embodiments, network 120 may include one or more routers and/or switches (such as switch 128).”
Paragraph 36, where “Electronic device 112 and/or computer system 130 may implement at least some of the operations in the monitoring techniques. Notably, as described further below, electronic device 112 and/or computer system 130 may perform at least some of the analysis of measurement data acquired by monitoring device 110, and may provide feedback information to monitoring device 110, electronic device 112 and/or computer 132.”
Paragraph 66, where “After receiving the one or more packets or frames 320, an interface circuit 324 in electronic device 112 may provide information 322 to processor 326 in electronic device 112. Then, processor 326 may provide an instruction 328 to interface circuit 324. In response, interface circuit 324 may provide one or more packets or frames 330 to computer system 130 with information 322 specifying or corresponding to: measurements 312. Alternatively, in some embodiments, interface circuit 324 may provide the one or more packets or frames 320 or 330 to computer system 130 without providing information 322 to processor 326.”
Paragraph 165, where “Processing subsystem 1110 includes one or more devices configured to perform computational operations. For example, processing subsystem 1110 can include one or more microprocessors, ASICs, microcontrollers, programmable-logic devices, GPUs and/or one or more DSPs. Note that a given component in processing subsystem 1110 are sometimes referred to as a 'computation device'.”
Paragraph 166, where “Memory subsystem 1112 includes one or more devices for storing data and/or instructions for processing subsystem 1110 and networking subsystem 1114. For example, memory subsystem 1112 can include dynamic random access memory (DRAM), static random access memory (SRAM), and/or other types of memory. In some embodiments, instructions for processing subsystem 1110 in memory subsystem 1112 include: program instructions or sets of instructions (such as program instructions 1122 or operating system 1124), which may be executed by processing subsystem 1110. Note that the one or more computer programs or program instructions may constitute a computer-program mechanism.”
Paragraph 173, where “Electronic device 1100 can be ( or can be included in) any electronic device with at least one network interface. For example, electronic device 1100 can be (or can be included in): a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a subnotebook/netbook, a server, a supercomputer, a tablet computer, a smartphone, a smartwatch, a smart speaker, a cellular telephone, a consumer-electronic device, a portable computing device, communication equipment, a monitoring device and/or another electronic device.”
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with route, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 2-5, 8-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18 and 20 recite transmitting, determining, and analyzing healthcare on the generically recited computing device as shown in the parent claims above.
Claims 6-7, 14 and 19 further recite “a pretrained model”, “supervised-learning model or a neural network” which are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the analyzing of data is performed using generic computer components with instructions are executed to perform the claimed limitations) shown in paragraphs 54 and 99 of the specification to be generic machine learning models. Such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginsburg (WO 2021/174169 A1) in view of Scales (US 2023/0005620 A1) further in view of Cao (WO 2016/004262 A1).
CLAIM 1-
Ginsburg teaches:
A computer system, comprising: an interface circuit; a computation device coupled to the interface circuit; and memory, coupled to the computation device, storing program instructions, wherein, when executed by the computation device, the program instructions cause the computer system to perform one or more operations comprising: (Ginsburg teaches a computing system that includes an interface that communicates with multiple devices including a provider device and a patient device (para [00190-0195, 00512, 00329]))
obtaining a set of data associated with an individual, wherein the set of data comprises or corresponds to a history of glaucoma diagnostic data or glaucoma treatment data for the individual during a time interval; (Ginsburg teaches the use of time increments to display patient data that can be diagnostic data of the onset date of glaucoma (para [00417, 00398, 00414]))
determining whether the set of data is medically meaningful for the individual (Ginsburg teaches the use of predefined thresholds to determine if a patient’s data are falling outside of defined parameters and if the data falls outside the parameters to set an alert of the user’s health (i.e., medically meaningful) (para [0446]))
when the set of data is determined to not be medically meaningful for the individual, providing, addressed to an electronic device, a request for additional data, (Ginsburg teaches that the medical data is compared to determine if there are errors in the data entries, and if there are errors, alert the user about the inconsistent medical data that doesn’t match a threshold to enable the user to request additional data through further diagnostic tests (para [0012, 00279]))wherein the additional data comprises one or more of: an additional data instance (Ginsburg teaches that an error may be an indication that the medication should be taken for 10 days rather than 10 months and can compare start and stop dates (i.e., additional medical data with sampling time differences) (para [00279, 0280]))
and when the set data is determined to be medically meaningful for the individual: analyzing the set of data to compute analysis results; (Ginsburg teaches the use of predefined thresholds to determine if a patient’s data are falling outside of defined parameters and if the data falls outside the parameters to set an alert of the user’s health (i.e., medically meaningful) to further analyze the patient data in further diagnostic tests (para [0446, 00279]))
Ginsburg does not explicitly teach, however Scales teaches:
and selectively providing, addressed to the electronic device, feedback associated with glaucoma of the individual or glaucoma treatment of the individual, wherein the feedback is selectively provided based at least in part on analysis results (Scales teaches outputting the risk for ophthalmic conditions (including glaucoma) based on feedback of the machine learning model and the analysis results of the machine learning model to be output onto a digital health tool on an electronic device (para [0107, 0091-0093, 0008, ]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the medical health record tracking system of Ginsburg to integrate the application of providing specific feedback regarding glaucoma predictions of Scales with the motivation of improving patient outcomes by helping predict ophthalmic conditions (see: Scales, paragraphs 1-2).
Ginsberg in view of Scales does not explicitly teach, however Cao teaches:
based at least in part on validating that the glaucoma diagnostic data comprises at least: a minimum of two intraocular pressure measurements with different sampling times; (Cao teaches measuring differing sampling rates of intraocular pressure to determine glaucoma diagnostic data and the sampling is performed continuously (i.e., more than two measurements) (para [0078-79, 0039, 0010]))
and at least one additional data type comprising: a clinician defined alert (Cao teaches a practitioner alert mode that can be user-defined (para [0090]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the medical health record tracking and glaucoma prediction system of Ginsburg in view of Scales to integrate the application of analyzing glaucoma specific data of patients with the motivation of improving patient outcomes by improving measuring IOP levels for long-term monitoring and patient compliance (see: Cao, paragraph 10).
CLAIM 2-
Ginsburg in view of Scales and further in view of Cao teaches the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 2, Ginsburg further teaches:
wherein the obtaining comprises performing measurements of the glaucoma diagnostic or the glaucoma treatment data (Ginsburg teaches determining if a treatment is working through obtaining pressure measurements and through image data or clinical parameters and this data may be related to glaucoma diagnosis (para [00203, 00376, 00412]))
CLAIM 3-
Ginsburg in view of Scales and further in view of Cao teaches the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 3, Ginsburg further teaches:
wherein the obtaining comprises accessing the glaucoma diagnostic or the glaucoma treatment data stored in the memory (Ginsburg obtaining patient data such as pressure measurements and through image data or clinical parameters and this data may be related to glaucoma diagnosis and treatment and may be stored in memory (para [00192, 00203, 00376, 00412]))
CLAIM 4-
Ginsburg in view of Scales and further in view of Cao teaches the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 4, Ginsburg further teaches:
wherein the obtaining comprises receiving, associated with the electronic device, the glaucoma diagnostic or the glaucoma treatment data (Ginsburg obtaining patient data such as pressure measurements and through image data or clinical parameters and this data may be related to glaucoma diagnosis and treatment and may be received and displayed by the provider’s electronic device (para [00225, 00203, 00376, 00412, 00442, 00679] Figure 48))
CLAIM 5-
Ginsburg in view of Scales and further in view of Cao teaches the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 5, Ginsburg further teaches:
wherein the electronic device is associated with the individual and the second electronic device is associated with a clinician (Ginsburg teaches a provider’s electronic device communicating with a monitoring device associated with the patient (para [00442, 00679, 00329] Figure 62))
CLAIM 6-
Ginsburg in view of Scales and further in view of Cao teaches the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 6, Scales further teaches:
wherein the determining, the analyzing or both are performed using a pretrained model (Scales teaches using a model, training it, and then determining and analyzing the data from the model (i.e., pretrained model) (para [0007, 0093]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the medical health record tracking system of Ginsburg to integrate the application of providing specific feedback models regarding glaucoma predictions of Scales with the motivation of improving patient outcomes by helping predict ophthalmic conditions (see: Scales, paragraphs 1-2).
CLAIM 7-
Ginsburg in view of Scales and further in view of Cao teaches the limitations of claim 6. Regarding claim 7, Scales further teaches:
wherein the pretrained model comprises a supervised-learning model (Scales teaches using a model, training it, and then determining and analyzing the data from the model (i.e., pretrained model using supervised learning (iterative training)) (para [0007, 0093]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the medical health record tracking system of Ginsburg to integrate the application of providing specific feedback models regarding glaucoma predictions of Scales with the motivation of improving patient outcomes by helping predict ophthalmic conditions (see: Scales, paragraphs 1-2).
CLAIM 8-
Ginsburg in view of Scales and further in view of Cao teaches the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 8, Ginsburg further teaches:
wherein the feedback comprises a treatment recommendation (Ginsburg teaches updating the treatment plan based on clinical data available (para [00223]))
CLAIM 9-
Ginsburg in view of Scales teaches and further in view of Cao the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 9, Ginsburg further teaches:
wherein the determining, the analysis or both is based at least in part on one or more of: a glaucoma stage or risk of the individual; (Ginsburg teaches determining glaucoma state (i.e., stage) of the patient in its analysis (para [00282, 00219]))
CLAIM 10-
Ginsburg in view of Scales and further in view of Cao teaches the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 10, Ginsburg further teaches:
wherein the types of data comprise: a prescribed medication (Ginsburg teaches that a prescribed medication for glaucoma is determined (para [00293]))
CLAIM 11-
Claim 11 is significantly similar to claim 1 and is rejected upon the same prior art as claim 1.
CLAIM 12-
Claim 12 is significantly similar to claims 2-4 and is rejected upon the same prior art as claims 2-4.
CLAIM 13-
Claim 13 is significantly similar to claim 5 and is rejected upon the same prior art as claim 5.
CLAIM 14-
Claim 14 is significantly similar to claim 6 and is rejected upon the same prior art as claim 6.
CLAIM 15-
Claim 15 is significantly similar to claim 9 and is rejected upon the same prior art as claim 9.
CLAIM 16-
Claim 16 is significantly similar to claim 1 and is rejected upon the same prior art as claim 1.
CLAIM 17-
Claim 17 is significantly similar to claims 2-4 and is rejected upon the same prior art as claims 2-4.
CLAIM 18-
Claim 18 is significantly similar to claim 5 and is rejected upon the same prior art as claim 5.
CLAIM 19-
Claim 19 is significantly similar to claim 6 and is rejected upon the same prior art as claim 6.
CLAIM 20-
Claim 20 is significantly similar to claim 9 and is rejected upon the same prior art as claim 9.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the 112(d) rejection, these arguments are not persuasive. Dependent claims 5, 13, and 18 rely on the second electronic device and further narrow the second electronic device. However, a second electronic device is not positively claimed in the independent claims 1, 11 and 16 as it is set with an or statement that does not include a second electronic device. In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d) a claim in dependent form shall contain: (i) a reference to a claim previously set forth (which is met) and (ii) specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed (which is not met). The further limitation in the dependent claims references subject matter that is not positively claimed in the independent claims.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the 103 rejection, these arguments are moot as the new reference of Cao teach the claim amendments.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the 101 rejection, these arguments are not persuasive. Examiner has followed all current USPTO guidelines in considering the invention as a whole and puts in each step’s analysis as to why it is considered under the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claimed invention as a whole is directed towards providing data from a patient and a provider in glaucoma treatment of a patient (paragraphs 52 and 48).
Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides a computer system that is more efficient by providing improved data quality that allows the computer system to analyze smaller datasets which may also consume fewer resources. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claimed invention provides an improvement of the function of a computer system. The claimed invention is different than Diamond v. Diehr and Enfish as it does not provide an improvement of a computing system nor an improvement to the functioning of a computing system that would overcome the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. The computer system recited is interchangeable with an electronic device in the specification (paragraph 51). A computer system being interchangeable with a generic electronic device that can be any electronic device (paragraph 173) does not provide an improvement to the technology of a computing system. The current claimed invention, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is reciting a generic computing system using generic computing devices that do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Improving data quality is improving data and not improving the computing device in which the data is being processed upon. The data is obtained, determined, and processed using a logic tree (Figure 2) and it is well-known in the art that logic calculations are generic computing functions.
The functions argued are representative of the abstract idea. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality that amount to a practical application. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to a technical problem presented by combining the two. In the present case, the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the identified abstract idea(s) in the rejection into a patent-eligible application of that idea.
Further, not every claim that recites concrete, tangible components escapes the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry. (See, e.g., Alice, 134). It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components that are generic is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. In order to amount to an inventive concept, the components must involve more than performance of “’well-understood, routine, conventional activities’ previously known to the industry.” (Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)). The originally filed specification was investigated and found to support this conclusion.
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 KIMBERLY A SASS whose telephone number is (571)272-4774. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-5PM (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, 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.
/K.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JASON B DUNHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3686