DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This action is in reply to the filed on 8/4/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 have been amended.
Claims 2, 6 and 11 have been cancelled.
Claim 1, 3-5, 7-10 and 12-20 currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The Applicant’s amendments, and cancellation, of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. Said amendments, and cancellation(s), are not sufficient to overcome the rejection previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. §101. As such, said rejection is herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 8/4/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0003], [0021]-[0027]) that patients with serious illnesses often require treatment with specialty medications. Currently, the process to gain approval to treat a patient with these medications is fractured, multi-step, and onerous for all involved parties, such as the patient, treating provider, insurance company, dispensing entity (pharmacy, specialty pharmacy, or distributor) and the manufacturer. In complex treatment scenarios, there is no single network to navigate the steps needed to start a patient on a prescribed therapy. So there is a need to provide a central platform to organize these human interactions by providing automated patient engagement using the steps of “implementing event brokers and event subscribers, subscribing to event brokers, listening to trigger event messages, receiving indications, decrypting trigger event messages, decrypting trigger event messages, determining availability of patient engagement service and supported, executing patient adherence prediction models, executing next-best-action machine learning models, determining delivery times, initiating engagement service, transmitting messages,” etc. Applicant’s system is therefore a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of “automated patient engagement,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0002]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-5, 7-10 and 12-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, system for performing the steps of “implementing event brokers and event subscribers, subscribing to event brokers, listening to trigger event messages, receiving indications, decrypting trigger event messages, decrypting trigger event messages, determining availability of patient engagement service and supported, executing patient adherence prediction models, executing next-best-action machine learning models, determining delivery times, initiating engagement service, transmitting messages,” etc., that is “automated patient engagement,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-5, 7-10 and 12-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. computer devices, I/O circuitry, communication circuitry, peripheral devices, processors, memories, network processing units, sensors, actuators, networks (Applicant’s Specification Figure 14A, Figure 14B, [0144]-[0147]), etc.) to perform steps of “implementing event brokers and event subscribers, subscribing to event brokers, listening to trigger event messages, receiving indications, decrypting trigger event messages, decrypting trigger event messages, determining availability of patient engagement service and supported, executing patient adherence prediction models, executing next-best-action machine learning models, determining delivery times, initiating engagement service, transmitting messages,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution activity
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-10 and 12-20 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations (i.e. computer devices, I/O circuitry, communication circuitry, peripheral devices, processors, memories, network processing units, sensors, actuators, networks, etc.) only store and retrieve information and perform repetitive calculations, and these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (Berkheimer- Court Decisions). These court decisions indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. computer devices, I/O circuitry, communication circuitry, peripheral devices, processors, memories, network processing units, sensors, actuators, networks, etc.). At paragraph(s) Figure 14A, Figure 14B, [0144]-[0147], Applicant’s specification describes conventional computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “computer devices, I/O circuitry, communication circuitry, peripheral devices, processors, memories, network processing units, sensors, actuators, networks,” etc. to perform the functions of “implementing event brokers and event subscribers, subscribing to event brokers, listening to trigger event messages, receiving indications, decrypting trigger event messages, decrypting trigger event messages, determining availability of patient engagement service and supported, executing patient adherence prediction models, executing next-best-action machine learning models, determining delivery times, initiating engagement service, transmitting messages,” etc. The recited “computer devices, I/O circuitry, communication circuitry, peripheral devices, processors, memories, network processing units, sensors, actuators, networks,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1, 3-5, 7-10 and 12-20 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 12-20 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/4/2025 with respect to claims 1, 3-5, 7-10 and 12-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed 8/4/2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 8/4/2025 with respect to claims 1, 3-5, 7-10 and 12-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that (A) the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to statutory matter.
101 Responses
As per Applicant’s argument (A), Applicant’s remarks with regard to the statutory nature of Applicant’s claimed invention are addressed above in the Office Action.
Rehash
Applicant's remarks and arguments merely rehash issues addressed in the Office Action mailed 2/3/2025 and incorporated herein.
Applicant’s Amendments
Applicant amended claims recite “the distributed microservice platform configured to interface with a plurality of event brokers configured to handle real-time event processing, a plurality of event subscribers distributed across hosting regions, and an analytics engine that implements machine learning models” “to listen for a trigger event message in real-time, wherein event messages are encrypted using a patient-specific encryption key prior to publication to the event broker,” “listen for trigger event messages in real-time,” “decrypt the trigger event message using the patient-specific encryption key within a secure execution environment,” etc. These are information processing steps that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea and do not move Applicant’s invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Data Processing Step
Applicant’s amended steps of “the distributed microservice platform configured to interface with a plurality of event brokers configured to handle real-time event processing, a plurality of event subscribers distributed across hosting regions, and an analytics engine that implements machine learning models” “to listen for a trigger event message in real-time, wherein event messages are encrypted using a patient-specific encryption key prior to publication to the event broker,” “listen for trigger event messages in real-time,” “decrypt the trigger event message using the patient-specific encryption key within a secure execution environment,” are abstract compurational steps that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea. In Electric Power Group the collection, manipulation and display of data has been found to be an abstract process. When claims, such as Applicant’s claims, are “directed to an abstract idea” and “merely requir[e] generic computer implementation,” they “do[] not move into [§] 101 eligibility territory.” buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, analysis of information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, is essentially a mental processes within the abstract-idea category (Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354). Further, Applicant appears to be claiming generic computer implementation of a certain method of organsing human interaction. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Integration into a Practical Application
Integration into a practical application requires additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (e.g. Enfish, McRO and Vanda) (2019 PEG).
Applicant’s “computer devices, I/O circuitry, communication circuitry, peripheral devices, processors, memories, network processing units, sensors, actuators, networks” is/are not an additional element(s) that reflects in the an improvement in the functioning of a computer, is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis, is/are not an additional element(s) that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or things, and is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment for the reasons explained in the 101 rejection above. Applicant’s “computer devices, I/O circuitry, communication circuitry, peripheral devices, processors, memories, network processing units, sensors, actuators, networks” is/are merely tools used by Applicant to implement data processing. Data processing is an abstract idea.
Recitation of an event publisher that performs information processing steps does not cure the lack of integration into a practical application. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Improvements – Advantageous over previous methods
The test for patent-eligible subject matter is not whether the claims are advantageous over previous methods. Even if Applicant’s claims provide advantages over manual collection of data, Applicant’s claims no technological improvement beyond improvement beyond the use of generic computer components/a generic computer network. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Improvement
Applicant claims the improvement of “improving the ability of the server system to connect a healthcare patient quickly, efficiently, and accurately with a patient engagement program,” “improvement in the fields of distributed computing, real-time analytics, and secure data processing,” “improvement over scenarios where patient engagement programs are unknown, poorly advertised, or mismanaged through other processes,” “improvement over static or batch-trained models,” “improves the functioning, security, and trustworthiness of the system,” however there does not appear to be a nexus between this improvement and which element/step implements this improvement in Applicant’s claims of record. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Improvements – Advantageous over previous methods
The test for patent-eligible subject matter is not whether the claims are advantageous over previous methods. Even if Applicant’s claims provide advantages over manual collection of data, Applicant’s claims no technological improvement beyond improvement beyond the use of generic computer components/a generic computer network. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Improvements
Despite recitation of computer devices, I/O circuitry, communication circuitry, peripheral devices, processors, memories, network processing units, sensors, actuators, networks, Applicant’s claims are, at bottom, directed to the collection, organization, grouping and storage of data using techniques such as information and data processing and machine learning. The computer devices, I/O circuitry, communication circuitry, peripheral devices, processors, memories, network processing units, sensors, actuators, networks recited in Applicant’s claims are merely tools used for organizing human activity, and are not an improvement to computer technology. This, the claims do not present any specific improvement in computer capabilities. Applicant’s arguments are nothing more than conclusory statements unmoored from specific claim language. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant claims the improvement of “improving the ability of the server system to connect a healthcare patient quickly, efficiently, and accurately with a patient engagement program,” “improvement in the fields of distributed computing, real-time analytics, and secure data processing,” “improvement over scenarios where patient engagement programs are unknown, poorly advertised, or mismanaged through other processes,” “improvement over static or batch-trained models,” “improves the functioning, security, and trustworthiness of the system,” etc. It has been held that it is not enough to merely improve a fundamental practices or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool (Affinity Labs. of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation). In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), it was held that “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible. In SAP America, Inc. v InvestPic, LLC it was held that patent directed to “selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying results,” are ineligible, and claims focused on an improvement in wholly abstract ideas are ineligible. Further, invocation of “already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be in advance…amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional” (SAP America, Inc. v InvestPic, LLC). Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Abstract Idea Cannot Supply the Inventive Concept
Applicant’s reliance on “improving the ability of the server system to connect a healthcare patient quickly, efficiently, and accurately with a patient engagement program,” “improvement in the fields of distributed computing, real-time analytics, and secure data processing,” “improvement over scenarios where patient engagement programs are unknown, poorly advertised, or mismanaged through other processes,” “improvement over static or batch-trained models,” “improves the functioning, security, and trustworthiness of the system,” etc. is misplaced because “the abstract idea itself cannot supply the invention concept, no matter how groundbreaking the advance” (Trading Technologies International, Inc. v IBG LLC). Thus, the claims do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Implementing Machine Learning Model
Applicant has amended Applicant’s claimed invention to recite “an analytics engine that implements machine learning models…,” “execute a next-best-action machine learning model….,” “retrain the patient adherence prediction model…” As recited Applicant’s claims are merely instruction to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Applicant’s Specification does not provide support more than mere instructions to apply an exception. Applicant’s amendments do not move Applicant’s claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
US Court of Appeals Decisions
The Examiner thanks the Applicant for Applicant’s reference to the Ancora Technologies, In re Marco Guldenaar Holding and In re Meyer US Court of Appeals decision. The Examiner respectfully submits the cited US Court of Appels decisions are specific to the facts before the panel, and are not binding on the present rejection. As such, the Examiner declines to address them.
BASCOM Global Internet Services and Pre-Emption
Further, the claims in BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility, LLC provide a technical solution to a problem rooted in computer technology (i.e. filtering Internet content). The claims are directed to the abstract idea of filtering content on the Internet on generic computer components performing conventional activities. However, the claims carve out a specific location for the filtering system (a remote ISP server) and require the filtering system to give users the ability to customize filtering for their individual network accounts, and are thus not pre-emptive. The claims are an improvement over prior art filters that were susceptible to hacking and dependent on local hardware and software or confined to an inflexible on-size-fits-all scheme. Simply adding a generic computing device that performs routine and conventional functions or presenting abstract claims that are directed to generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity (i.e. implementing event brokers and event subscribers, subscribing to event brokers, listening to trigger event messages, receiving indications, decrypting trigger event messages, decrypting trigger event messages, determining availability of patient engagement service and supported, executing patient adherence prediction models, executing next-best-action machine learning models, determining delivery times, initiating engagement service, transmitting messages, etc.) is not equivalent or similar to addressing the Internet filtering challenge as is the case in BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility, LLC While the claims are directed to a process that is performed on a computer, they are not directed to an Internet filtering challenge. In fact, the claims are not directed to the filtering Internet content at all or functions that are particular to Internet filtering as is the case in the claims of BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility, LLC. Therefore, because the claims fail to provide a technical solution to any Internet filtering challenges, the ordered combination of limitations do not amount to significantly more than a method of managing interactions between people and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. As explained above, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Further, as explained above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
McRo, Inc.
Further, the claims in McRo, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., are directed to an improvement in computer animation. The invention employs a computer to perform a “distinct” process to automate a task previously performed by humans. However, the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, are what improves the existing technological process by allowing automation of tasks. Simply adding a generic computing device that performs routine and conventional functions or presenting abstract claims that are directed to generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity (i.e. implementing event brokers and event subscribers, subscribing to event brokers, listening to trigger event messages, receiving indications, decrypting trigger event messages, decrypting trigger event messages, determining availability of patient engagement service and supported, executing patient adherence prediction models, executing next-best-action machine learning models, determining delivery times, initiating engagement service, transmitting messages, etc.) is not equivalent or similar to addressing a computer animation challenge as is the case in McRo, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. While the claims are directed to a process that is performed on a computer, they are not directed to a computer animation challenge. In fact, the claims are not directed to computer animation at all or functions that are particular to computer animation as is the case in the claims of McRo, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. Therefore, because the claims fail to provide a technical solution to any computer animation challenges, the ordered combination of limitations do not amount to significantly more than a method of managing interactions between people and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. As explained above, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Further, as explained above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
DDR Holdings, LLC
Further, the claims in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. provide a technical solution to a problem rooted in computer technology (i.e. expanding commercial opportunities for internet websites). Simply adding a generic computing device that performs routine and conventional functions (i.e. implementing event brokers and event subscribers, subscribing to event brokers, listening to trigger event messages, receiving indications, decrypting trigger event messages, decrypting trigger event messages, determining availability of patient engagement service and supported, executing patient adherence prediction models, executing next-best-action machine learning models, determining delivery times, initiating engagement service, transmitting messages, etc.) is not equivalent or similar to addressing an Internet or network centric challenge as is the case in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. While the claims are directed to a process that is performed on a computer, they are not directed to a business challenge that is particular to the Internet. In fact, the claims are not directed to the use of the Internet at all or functions that are particular to the Internet such as the generation of a web page as is the case in the claims of DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. Therefore, because the claims fail to provide a technical solution to any network or Internet-centric challenges, the ordered combination of limitations do not amount to significantly more than a method of managing interactions between people and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. As explained above, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Further, as explained above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) for 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 for 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 extension free 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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 W. MORGAN can be reached on (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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683