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 .
Applicant is advised that the Notice of Allowance mailed 01/30/2026 is vacated. If the issue fee has already been paid, applicant may request a refund or request that the fee be credited to a deposit account. However, applicant may wait until the application is either found allowable or held abandoned. If allowed, upon receipt of a new Notice of Allowance, applicant may request that the previously submitted issue fee be applied. If abandoned, applicant may request refund or credit to a specified Deposit Account.
Prosecution on the merits of this application is reopened on claims 1-20 considered unpatentable for the reasons indicated below:
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20: Step 1
Claims 1-10 are drawn to a system for customizing treatments, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 11-20 are drawn to a method for customizing treatments, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process).
Claims 1-20: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recites calculate a condition state label as a function of an element of user physiological data; generate a treatment model, using an algorithm, wherein the treatment model utilizes condition state labels as inputs and outputs treatments, wherein generating the treatment model further comprises: calculating a treatment category selector as a function of an implementation factor, wherein the implementation factor indicates a user preference pertaining to different treatment practices; output a treatment utilizing the treatment model; receive a treatment response; generate a treatment response score as a function of the treatment response. Claim 11 recites similar limitations.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing personal behavior by manually following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. But for the recitation of generic computer components, these limitations encompass a user calculating a condition state label as a function of an element of user physiological data, generating a treatment model, using an algorithm, wherein the treatment model utilizes condition state labels as inputs and outputs treatments, wherein generating the treatment model further comprises: calculating a treatment category selector as a function of an implementation factor, wherein the implementation factor indicates a user preference pertaining to different treatment practices, outputting a treatment utilizing the treatment model, receiving a treatment response, and generating a treatment response score as a function of the treatment response. These steps could be carried out manually by a user following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Claim 11 recites similar limitations.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the recitation of generic computer components, Claims 2 and 12 further define calculating a current condition state progression indicator. Claims 3 and 13 further define categorizing the treatment response to a treatment response category and generating the treatment response score. Claims 4 and 14 further defines categorizing the treatment response to a treatment response category. Claims 5-6 and 15-16 further define generating an encouragement notification. Claims 7 and 17 further define generating a healthcare notification. Claims 8 and 18 further define receiving the treatment response. Claims 9 and 19 further define calculating the treatment category selector. Claims 10 and 20 further define generating the treatment response score. Therefore, these claims are similarly drawn to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 1-20: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas along with insignificant, extra-solution data gathering activity, and adding limitations similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a computing device. Claim 11 recites the additional elements of a computing device and a remote device. However, these claim elements are recited at a high level of generality (see at least paragraphs 9 and 67) and are merely used as tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1-20, directly or indirectly, recite the following generic computer components: “medical data processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to perform steps” and “non-transitory computer program product storing computer-readable instructions that are executable to perform steps” which are similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. The written description discloses that the recited computer components encompass generic components including “System 100 includes a computing device 104. Computing device 104 may include any computing device 104 as described in this disclosure, including without limitation a microcontroller, microprocessor, digital signal processor (DSP) and/or system on a chip (SoC) as described in this disclosure. Computing device 104 may include, be included in, and/or communicate with a mobile device such as a mobile telephone or smartphone” (see at least Paragraph [0009]) and “system 100 may include a remote device 132. Remote device 132 may include without limitation, a display in communication with computing device 104, where a display may include any display as described herein. Remote device 132 may include an additional computing device, such as a mobile device, laptop, desktop, computer and the like. Remote device 132 may be configured to transmit and/or receive one or more inputs from computing device 104 utilizing any network methodology as described herein. Remote device 132 may be operated by a user which may include any human subject” (see at least Paragraph [0067]). Additionally, Claims 1 and 11 also recite machine-learning algorithm and treatment training set to generate the treatment model. However, the machine-learning algorithm and treatment training set are recited at a high level of generality and are utilized only to perform the abstract step of generating the treatment model (see at least Paragraph [0132]). See MPEP 2106.05 (f). As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1-20: Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements (for example, machine learning) are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. For example, use Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). As explained above, the generic computer components and machine learning are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception.
Claim 11 fails to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claim 11 fails to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Receiving and transmitting data over a network (i.e. receiving and communicating data or signals) has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of a general-purpose computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result has also been found to be insufficient to show an improvement to technology, (see MPEP 2106.05(a) and TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48).
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, the high-level recitation of an output of results also fails to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joy Chng whose telephone number is 571.270.7897. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, JASON DUNHAM can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). 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.
/Joy Chng/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights