DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to a response filed 13 April 2026, on an application filed 1 September 2023.
Claims 1, 4, 7-10, 13, 15 and 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 3, 6, 12 and 17 have been canceled.
Claims 21-29 have been added by amendment.
Claims 1, 4, 7-10, 13, 15 and 18-29 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
means for receiving a plurality of patient data points; means for encoding the patient data; means for imputing the missing data; and means for outputting results in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitations means for receiving a plurality of patient data points; means for encoding the patient data; means for imputing the missing data; and means for outputting results has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder means for coupled with functional language receiving/encoding/imputing/outputting without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 10 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the specification indicates in paragraphs 25, 27-32 and 34 that the various means for limitations can be performed by hardware, and in some cases hardware and/or software.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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, 7-10, 13, 15 and 18-29 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.
Step 1
Claims 1, 4, 7-10, 13, 15 and 18-29 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9 and 22-25 are drawn to a computer-implemented method for predicting a patient medical event, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 10 and 13 are drawn to an apparatus, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 15 and 18-29 are drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1 recites: A computer-implemented method for performing a medical analysis task, comprising:
receiving a plurality of patient data points of a patient for a set of biomarkers acquired at a plurality of time points within a period of time, wherein the patient data points are missing data at a time point for a
encoding the patient data points comprising time embeddings using a transformer-based encoder network to generate patient data embeddings;
imputing the missing data using a transformer-based decoder network, wherein the imputing regularizes the transformer-based decoder network to perform the medical analysis task;
performing the medical analysis task based on the patient data embeddings using the transformer-based decoder network, the medical analysis task comprising generating a recommendation for a clinical course of action, wherein the medical analysis task is selected from the group consisting of: determining a time to discharge the patient; determining a survival score of the patient; determining a health status of an organ of the patient; determining a health status of an organ system of the patient; risk stratifying the patient for a disease or a set of diseases for identifying population that should be screened for the disease; and determining a risk score associated with a disease; and
outputting results of the medical analysis task.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case the steps of receiving patient data, encoding it with other data, such as time data, imputing missing data and then analyzing the data to recommend a course of action), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea(s) are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for claims 10 and 15 are identical as the abstract idea for claims 1, because the only difference between claims 1, 10, and 15 is that claim 1 recites a method, whereas claim 10 recites an apparatus and claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable media.
Dependent claims 4, 7-9, 13 and 18-29 include other limitations, for example claims 7 and 18 disclose a risk score, confidence interval or ratio score, claim 19 discloses data simulation, claims 9 and 20 disclose the use of training data, and claims 21-29 further describe the data points, tasks and biomarkers, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, any limitations in dependent claims 4, 7-9, 13 and 18-29 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea, and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent claims 4, 7-9, 13 and 18-29 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 10 and 15.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1, 10 and 15 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the structural components of the computer and the encoder network, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language limiting the data to biomarkers and patient data, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and/or insignificant application (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, dependent claims 4, 7-9, 13 and 18-29 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. claims 4, 8, 9, 13, 19 and 20 disclose encoder networks, decoder networks and transformer networks, and claims 7 and 18 disclose a user interface), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1, 10 and 15, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 10 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the dispensing device and the one or more processors), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity comprises limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs [0029] and [0091-96] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the computer and encoder network) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receive and process data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare).
Dependent claims 4, 7-9, 13 and 18-29 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1, 10 and 15, and/or the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. claims 4, 8, 9, 13, 19 and 20 disclose encoder networks, decoder networks and transformer networks, and claims 7 and 18 disclose a user interface), and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1, 4, 7-10, 13, 15 and 18-29 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 7-10, 13, 15 and 18-22-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dalal et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2020/0176121 A1), hereinafter Dalal, further in view of Theodorou et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2024/0105292 A1), hereinafter Theodorou, and Porwancher (European Patent EP 2084535 B1), hereinafter Porwancher.
As per claims 1, 4, 10, 13, 15 and 21, Dalal discloses an apparatus, a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer program instructions, the computer program instructions when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform operations, an apparatus for performing a medical analysis task, and a computer-implemented method (Dalal, see Figs. 1 and 7.) comprising:
receiving a plurality of patient data points of a patient for a set of biomarkers acquired at a plurality of time points within a period of time, wherein the patient data points are missing data at a time point for a biomarker of the set of biomarkers within the period of time (Dalal discloses receiving patient data including a plurality of sensed data types, e.g. heart rate and glucose values, see paragraphs 19 and 234. Dalal, paragraphs 232-235 and Figs. 20A-20D disclose wherein certain biomarkers are missing for certain time points.);
encoding the patient data points comprising time embeddings using a … encoder network to generate patient data embeddings (Dalal discloses embedding the patient data using an encoder network, see paragraphs 127, 128 and paragraphs 154-157. Dalal discloses temporal embeddings created with an encoder network, see paragraph 7.);
imputing the missing data using a … decoder network, wherein the imputing regularizes the … decoder network to perform the medical analysis task (Dalal, paragraphs 232-235 and Figs. 20A-20D disclose wherein data is imputed for certain missing biomarkers at certain time points; Dalal imputes data to regularize data system to enable system to work.);
performing the medical analysis task based on the patient data embeddings using the… decoder network, the medical analysis task comprising generating a recommendation for a clinical course of action, wherein the medical analysis task is selected from the group consisting of: (Dalal uses a decoder to perform an analysis of the data and provide a recommendation, see paragraphs 14, 157-158 and Fig. 4B. Dalal, paragraphs 232-235 and Figs. 20A-20D disclose wherein data is imputed for certain missing biomarkers at certain time points.) … ,
outputting results of the one or more medical analysis tasks (Dalal discloses outputting recommendations, see paragraph 14.).
Dalal fails to explicitly disclose:
transformer-based encoder and decoder networks;
wherein the one or more medical analysis task is selected from the group consisting of: determining a time to discharge the patient; determining a survival score of the patient; determining a health status of an organ of the patient determining a health status of an organ system of the patient risk stratifying the patient for a disease or a set of diseases for identifying population that should be screened for the disease; and determining a risk score associated with a disease; and
4,13,21. wherein the patient data points are sparse ();
Theodorou teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize transformer-based encoder and decoder networks and 4,13,21. wherein the patient data points are sparse (Theodorou) in order to provide analysis of healthcare record data in parallel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biophysical model and response prediction system of Dalal to include transformer-based encoder and decoder networks wherein the patient data points are sparse, as taught by Theodorou, in order to arrive at a biophysical model and response prediction system that can provide analysis of healthcare record data in parallel. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Porwancher teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein the one or more medical analysis tasks comprise one or more of the group selected from: … determining a risk score associated with a disease (Porwancher discloses determining a likelihood of a patient’s risk of having Lyme disease, see paragraph 2.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biophysical model and response prediction system of Dalal to include utilizing determining a risk score associated with a disease, as taught by Porwancher, in order to arrive at a biophysical model and response prediction system that can compare different possible results in order to arrive at the best treatment for a patient. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Dalal, Theodorou and Porwancher are all directed to the electronic processing of patient healthcare data.
As per claims 8, 9, 19, 20 and 22-29, Dalal/Theodorou/Porwancher discloses claims 1, 10 and 15, discussed above. Dalal/Theodorou/Porwancher also discloses:
8,19. wherein the transformer-based encoder network and the transformer-based decoder network are trained by simulating data for the biomarker of the set of biomarkers as being missing in training patient data (Dalal discloses imputing biomarker data for training data sets, see paragraphs 226-230. Theodorou discloses transformer-based encoder and decoder networks.);
9,20. wherein the transformer-based encoder network and the transformer-based decoder network are trained using deep reinforcement learning by iterating over a window of training patient data and estimated future patient data (Dalal, paragraphs 105, 143, 277 and 293. Theodorou discloses transformer-based encoder and decoder networks.);
22,26. wherein the medical analysis task is associated with a cancer (Dalal discloses recommendation concerning nutrition, physical activity, sleep, hydration, stress release, see paragraphs 6 and 131, which are well known to affect a patient’s risk of cancer.);
23,27. wherein the set of biomarkers comprises a laboratory measurement (Dalal discloses receipt of sensed biomarkers, as shown above. The operation of the current claimset would be the same regardless of the source of the biomarkers, accordingly, the source of the biomarkers comprises nonfunctional descriptive material.);
24,28. wherein the set of biomarkers comprises a measurement from a medical image (Dalal discloses receipt of sensed biomarkers, as shown above. The operation of the current claimset would be the same regardless of the source of the biomarkers, accordingly, the source of the biomarkers comprises nonfunctional descriptive material.); and
25,29. wherein the set of biomarkers comprises a genetic biomarker of the patient (Dalal discloses receipt of sensed biomarkers, as shown above. The operation of the current claimset would be the same regardless of the source of the biomarkers, accordingly, the source of the biomarkers comprises nonfunctional descriptive material.).
As per claims 7 and 18, Dalal/Theodorou/Porwancher discloses claims 1, 10 and 15, discussed above. Dalal further discloses wherein outputting results of the medical analysis task comprises: presenting a user interface depicting … a cohort of patients (Dalal presents a user interface, see Figs. 16-17. Theodorou discloses patient cohorts, see paragraphs 71, 98 and 99.).
Dalal fails to explicitly disclose a likelihood ratio score.
Porwancher teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a likelihood ratio score, see Porwancher, Figs. 1-3 and claim 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biophysical model and response prediction system of Dalal/Theodorou/Porwancher to include utilizing a likelihood ratio score, as taught by Porwancher, in order to arrive at a biophysical model and response prediction system that can compare different possible results in order to arrive at the best treatment for a patient. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
As per claims 22-25 and 26-29, Dalal/Theodorou/Porwancher discloses claims 1, 10 and 15, discussed above. Dalal/Theodorou/Porwancher further discloses:
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 13 April 2026 concerning the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 103(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
`With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues on pages 8-9 that the claims in general provide an improvement to computer functionality in that they recite regularizing the transfer-based decoder network.
The Office respectfully disagrees. Please see the statutory rejection of the claims issued above.
The cited limitation does not improve the network, rather recitation of imputing missing data is utilized to provide missing data for the system to process, not for improving the computer. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Here, the Applicant’s argued problem is not a technological problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined. The problem of missing data was not a problem cause by the computer/server environment, is it a problem that existed and/or exists regardless of whether a computer/server is involved in the process. At best, Applicant’s identified problem is a business problem. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues on pages 10-13 that Dalal and Monier fails to disclose the limitations added by amendment.
The Office respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, specifically with reference to the new reference necessitated by amendment, Theodorou, as detailed above, or because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant continues, arguing on pages 15-17 that there is no likelihood of success in combining Dalal and Porwancher as they are directed to different outcomes, making recommendations regarding to a patient regarding their glucose measurements and determining a risk of a disease, respectfully.
The Office respectfully disagrees. Determining a risk score associated with a disease for a patient monitoring their glucose would clearly be a useful function. Both applications are directed to the electronic processing of patient healthcare data in order to provide recommendations to a patient, they are very similar and therefore would have a high likelihood of expectation of success.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is found from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, as shown above.
In conclusion, all of the limitations which Applicant disputes as missing in the applied references, including the features newly added by amendment, have been fully addressed by the Office as either being fully disclosed or obvious in view of the collective teachings of Dalal, Theodorou, Monier and Porwancher, based on the logic and sound scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, as detailed in the remarks and explanations given in the preceding sections of the present Office Action and in the prior Office Actions (12 January 2026, 29 September 2025 and 9 April 2025), and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
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.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
12 June 2025
Prosecution Insights