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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/1/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the RCE filed 6/1/2026.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 14-16 and 19-20 were amended 6/1/2026.
Claims 5, 10, 13, and 18 were canceled and claim 21 was added 6/1/2026.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-17 and 19-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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, 6-9, 11-17 and 19-21 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 1-4, 6-9, 11-17 and 19-21 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; evaluating, sampling times of intraocular pressure measurements included in the set of data to determine whether the set of data is medically meaningful for the individual, wherein determining whether the set of data is medically meaningful is based at least in part on whether the sampling times of the intraocular pressure measurements are temporally sufficient to capture temporal variation of intraocular pressure; in response to determining, that the set of data is not medically meaningful for the individual based at least in part on insufficient temporal sampling of the intraocular pressure measurements, sending, a request for additional glaucoma diagnostic data, wherein the request for the additional glaucoma diagnostic data comprises a request for additional intraocular pressure measurements at one or more different sampling times than sampling times of the intraocular pressure measurements included in the set of data; and when the set of 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 associated with the individual”, “second electronic device associated with a clinician”, “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 2-4, 6-9, 12-15, 17 and 19-21 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 2-4, 6-9, 12-15, 17 and 19-21 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-4, 6-9, 11-17 and 19-21 are allowable over the prior art of Ginsburg (WO 2021/174169 A1), Scales (US 2023/0005620 A1) and Cao (WO 2016/004262 A1). The claim amendments overcome the prior art of record by determining sufficient and insufficient temporal sampling of intraocular pressure measurements and requesting additional glaucoma diagnostic data when the intraocular pressure measurements are insufficient. A new prior art search was conducted and found the prior art of Pecora (US 2021/0082573 A1) that teaches determining progression of disease based on temporal data, however does not teach in terms of ocular pressure temporal data.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 6/1/2026 have been fully considered.
The arguments pertaining to the claim objections are persuasive. The amendments overcome the objections and they have been withdrawn.
The arguments pertaining to the 112 rejections are persuasive. The amendments overcome the 112 rejections and they have been withdrawn.
The arguments pertaining to the 103 rejection are persuasive. The amendments overcome the previous prior art. A new prior art search was conducted and found the prior art of Pecora (US 2021/0082573 A1) that teaches determining progression of disease based on temporal data, however does not teach in terms of ocular pressure temporal data. The 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the 101 rejection, these arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed invention is directed towards a technical improvement in the operation of a glaucoma monitoring system, specifically addressing how physiological sensor data is evaluated for sufficiency and how additional measurements are acquired when existing data is temporally lacking. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The system is merely providing input/output of data and determining these outputs using thresholding calculations (specification paragraph 120). Using calculations for interactions between a clinician and a patient (specification paragraph 48) to sort data does not provide a technological improvement that solves a technical problem.
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention provides a practical application by including a specific sequence of technical operations that improves system performance. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed invention is merely using thresholding calculations (specification paragraph 120) to sort through data and does not provide a technological improvement on the system itself, nor does it improve the operation. Improving the calculation of data and improving the output of data does not provide a practical application to overcome the abstract idea as data output on a generic computing device does not provide a technological improvement.
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention is similar to Example 41. Examiner respectfully disagrees as Example 41 has an improves private network communications, while the current invention is outputting data using stagnant thresholding calculations that does not transform the data in a meaningful way to provide a practical application.
The dependent claims rely on the arguments of the independent claims and are rejected for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pecora (US 2021/0082573 A1) teaches determining progression of disease based on temporal data, however does not teach in terms of ocular pressure temporal data.
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.
/KIMBERLY A. SASS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights