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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment dated 02 December 2025, the following occurred: Claims 1, 3-5, 8, and 10 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
This application does not claim priority to any other patent document and is thus afforded a priority date corresponding to the filing date of 29 January 2024.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claim. In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of: a comprehensive care artificial intelligence system configured to implement a real-time dynamic predictive artificial intelligence model that processes data within the data store to automatically identify causal relationships pertinent to the real-time patient assessment for the target patient, the comprehensive care artificial intelligence system further configured to utilize the identified causal relationships to automatically generate a real-time dynamic healthcare recommendation pertinent to the real-time patient assessment for the target patient, wherein the system is configured to feedback the identified causal relationships and the real-time dynamic healthcare recommendation that are pertinent to the real-time patient assessment for the target patient to the data acquisition engine for entry into the data store, and wherein the comprehensive
care artificial intelligence system is configured to identify and characterize interaction outcomes of multi-variate target patient treatment functions applied by multiple healthcare providers to determine an effect that one healthcare provider has on another healthcare provider with regard to an outcome for the target patient.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a system for surfacing dynamic personalized healthcare insight for a target patient, which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
The limitations of receive input data that includes data streams of medical data for multiple patients, data streams of situational data for the multiple patients, and data streams of environmental characterization data relevant to the multiple patients, wherein the multiple patients include the target patient, the received input data including real-time medical data, real-time situational data, and real-time environmental data for the target patient, identify a type of the received input data and store the received input data based on the type of the received input data; store the received input data as directed; process the received input data for the target patient through a rule-based algorithm to automatically generate a real-time patient assessment for the target patient, wherein the system is configured to feedback the real-time patient assessment for the target patient; implement a model that processes stored data to automatically identify causal relationships pertinent to the real-time patient assessment for the target patient and utilize the identified causal relationships to automatically generate a real-time dynamic healthcare recommendation pertinent to the real-time patient assessment for the target patient, wherein feedback of the identified causal relationships and the real-time dynamic health recommendation that are pertinent to the real-time patient assessment for the target patient to the entry into the data store is provided, and wherein performance of identify and characterize interaction outcomes of multi-variate target patient treatment functions applied by multiple healthcare providers to determine an effect that one healthcare provider has on another healthcare provider with regard to an outcome for the target patient occurs; and prepare and transmit an output data stream that provides for graphical display of output information, the output information conveying both the real-time patient assessment for the target patient and the real-time dynamic healthcare recommendation pertinent to the real-time patient assessment for the target patient, wherein the output information includes information on the effect that one healthcare provider has on another healthcare provider with regard to the outcome for the target patient, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system (a computer, see 112(f) interpretation, supra), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the various engines and data store, this claim encompasses a person collecting patient data, generate assessments, identify causal relationships, generate a recommendation, and output the data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a data acquisition engine, a data store, a patient assessment engine, a comprehensive care artificial intelligence system, and a dashboard generator that implements the identified abstract idea. These items are described by the Applicant as portions of a general-purpose computer (see also previous 112(f) interpretation) that is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., general-purpose computer) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim further recites the additional element of using a real-time dynamic predictive artificial intelligence model to identify causal relationships pertinent to the real-time patient assessment utilize the identified causal relationships to automatically generate a real-time dynamic healthcare recommendation pertinent to the real-time patient assessment for the target patient. This represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea using a generic computer or components thereof does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See, e.g., Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437 at 10 (Fed. Cir. April 18, 2025) (finding that claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are ineligible). Alternatively, or in addition, the implementation of the real-time dynamic predictive artificial intelligence model to identify causal relationships pertinent to the real-time patient assessment utilize the identified causal relationships to automatically generate a real-time dynamic healthcare recommendation pertinent to the real-time patient assessment for the target patient merely confines the use of the abstract idea (i.e., the trained model) to a particular technological environment or field of use (supervised machine learning, unsupervised machine learning, and/or reinforced machine learning; see Spec. Para. 0034) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
The claim further recites the additional element of a computing device of a user. The computing device of a user merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does 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, the additional element of using a general-purpose computer to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the real-time dynamic predictive artificial intelligence model to identify causal relationships pertinent to the real-time patient assessment utilize the identified causal relationships to automatically generate a real-time dynamic healthcare recommendation pertinent to the real-time patient assessment for the target patient was found to represent mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and/or confine the use of the abstract idea (i.e., the trained AI model) to a particular technological environment or field of use (supervised machine learning, unsupervised machine learning, and/or reinforced machine learning; see Spec. Para. 0034). This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to be insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(I) indicates that mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and/or confining the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. See also Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437 at 17 (Fed. Cir. April 18, 2025) (finding that applying machine learning to an abstract idea does not transform a claim into something significantly more).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computing device of a user was determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-20 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim(s) 2 also includes the feature of training the real-time dynamic predictive artificial intelligence model. When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, the training of a machine learning model represents the creation of mathematical interrelationships between data. As such, the training of the machine learning model represents a mathematical concept that is interpreted to be part of the identified abstract idea, supra. The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Claim(s) 3, 17, 18, 19 merely describe(s) they type(s) of data.
Claim(s) 4, 5 merely describe(s) identifying situations and generating various recommendations.
Claim(s) 6 merely describe(s) determining a probability of effectiveness of a recommendation.
Claim(s) 7 merely describe(s) a location from which data is received. Claim 7 also includes the additional element of a computing device of the target patient, which is analyzed in the same manner as the computing device of a user in Claim 1.
Claim(s) 8, 9 merely describe(s) outputting data. Claim 8, 9 also includes the additional element of a graphical user interface configured for display on the computing device of the user, which is analyzed in the same manner as the computing device of a user in Claim 1, i.e., it is part of the user device.
Claim(s) 10 merely describe(s) determining an urgency level for the recommendation.
Claim(s) 11 merely describe(s) a data curation policy. Claim 11 also includes the additional element of a data curation engine, which is analyzed in the same manner as the engines in Claim 1 (i.e., they are part of the general-purpose computer).
Claim(s) 12 merely describe(s) the data.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 15, 16 merely describe(s) providing additional data. Claim 13, 14, 15, 16 also includes the additional element of a marketplace interface engine, which is analyzed in the same manner as the engines in Claim 1 (i.e., they are part of the general-purpose computer).
Claim(s) 20 merely describe(s) the target patient.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
Regarding the rejection(s) of Claims 1-20, obviousness-type double patenting is no longer present with regard to the previously-noted applications.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
As discussed below, the Applicant submits that amended claim 1 does NOT recite methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Applicant has offered no specific arguments as to why the claims do not recite an abstract idea. The argument states “As discussed below…,” but never actually discusses this.
As explained in paragraph [0062] of the Applicant's specification: "there is no evidence or body of knowledge to date that considers the effect that one healthcare provider has on another healthcare provider, i.e., interaction effect. However, through application of the system 100, such interaction effects can be identified and addressed as needed." Therefore, at least the above-mentioned features of amended claim 1 integrate the system of amended claim 1 into a practical application, which establishes the patentable subject matter status of amended claim 1.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even assuming arguendo that this statement in the Specification is true, this represents an improvement to the abstract idea rather than an improvement that would render the claims subject matter eligible. MPEP 2106.05(I) states: “As made clear by the courts, the novelty of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter (internal quotations omitted, emphasis original).”
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Applicant further submits that amended claim 1 certainly qualifies as patentable subject matter under Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test by reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements include at least the comprehensive care artificial intelligence system of amended claim 1 being configured to identify and characterize interaction outcomes of multi-variate target patient treatment functions applied by multiple healthcare providers to determine an effect that one healthcare provider has on another healthcare provider with regard to an outcome for the target patient, and correspondingly include the information on the effect that one healthcare provider has on another healthcare provider with regard to the outcome for the target patient within the output information provided by the dashboard generator.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argued features are part of the abstract idea and are not additional elements. Because these argued features are not additional elements, they cannot provide significantly more and analysis under the well-understood, routine, and convention test is not required or even necessary.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Regarding the indefiniteness rejection of Claims 3-5, the Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the bases of rejection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments in light of the present amendments and withdraws the prior art rejection.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Hussain et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2010/0169119) which discloses a continuous quality improvement system for correlating outcomes with system inputs resulting in recommendations.
Williams et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2018/0174691) which discloses a visualization system for visualizing patient/provider interactions.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON S TIEDEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4594. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-4:00pm, off alternate Fridays.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at 571-272-6773. 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.
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683