DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This action is in reply to the filed on 7/9/2025.
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 and 4 have been amended.
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 have been cancelled.
Claims 7-10 are new.
Claim 1, 4 and 7-10 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.
With the amendment of claims 1 and 4, and the cancellation of claims 2-3 and 5-6, applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 102 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection. Gnanasambandam et al. 022 do not teach “receiving patient analysis basic information including voice data, "inputting the voice data is input into a voice data analysis Al engine,” etc.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: The sentence " inputting the voice data is input into a voice data analysis Al engine" is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Mental Process/Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0001]-[0002]) that individual life can be efficiently managed on the basis of recorded data obtained from various smart technologies. So a need exists to organize these human interactions by/through patient reporting using the steps of “receiving patient analysis, inputting voice data, generating queries, generating report basic information, generating patient reports,” etc. Applicant’s system/computer readable medium is therefore a mental process and a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “patient reporting,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0001]-[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, recite an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “patient reporting,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0001]-[0002]), etc., as explained in detail below, and therefore fall within the “Mental Processes” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas. 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, recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, system/computer readable medium for performing the steps of “receiving patient analysis, inputting voice data, generating queries, generating report basic information, generating patient reports,” etc., that is “patient reporting,” etc. The limitation of “receiving patient analysis, inputting voice data, generating queries, generating report basic information, generating patient reports,” etc. is a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “executed by a computer/processor,” nothing in the claims elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “executed by a computer/processor” language, the limitation of “receiving patient analysis, inputting voice data, generating queries, generating report basic information, generating patient reports,” etc., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1, recite an abstract idea.
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, system/computer readable medium for performing the steps of “receiving patient analysis, inputting voice data, generating queries, generating report basic information, generating patient reports,” etc., that is “patient reporting,” 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, 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. user devices, patient analysis devices, patient reporting generating devices, information security devices (Applicant’s Specification [0016], [0025]-[0031]), etc.) to perform steps of “receiving patient analysis, inputting voice data, generating queries, generating report basic information, generating patient reports,” 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, 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 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 (i.e. user devices, patient analysis devices, patient reporting generating devices, information security devices, etc.) are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept (Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)). 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. user devices, patient analysis devices, patient reporting generating devices, information security devices, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0016], [0025]-[0031], Applicant’s specification describes generic computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “user devices, patient analysis devices, patient reporting generating devices, information security devices,” etc. to perform the functions of “receiving patient analysis, inputting voice data, generating queries, generating report basic information, generating patient reports,” etc. The recited “user devices, patient analysis devices, patient reporting generating devices, information security devices,” 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, or improves a technical field, or provides a technical improvement to a technical problem. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1, do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 7-10 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Dependent claims 7-10 merely specify which information is used for various calculations (e.g. 7-10), or provide further mental processes (e.g. 7-10), but these do not change that the process can be performed in the mind.
Although dependent claims 7-10 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 7-10 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(s) 1 and 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/9/2025 with respect to claims 1, 4 and 7-10 have been fully considered and they are partially persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed 7/9/2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/9/2025 with respect to claims 1, 4 and 7-10 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that (A) Gnanasambandam et al. 022 do not anticipate the present invention because Gnanasambandam et al. 022 do not disclose “receiving patient analysis basic information including voice data, "inputting the voice data is input into a voice data analysis Al engine,” etc. in the previously presented and/or presently amended claims, (B) the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to statutory matter.
102 Responses
In response to Applicant’s argument (A), Applicant’s arguments with regard to the application of Gnanasambandam et al. 022 to the amended and new limitations have been found persuasive. Gnanasambandam et al. 022 do not teach “receiving patient analysis basic information including voice data, "inputting the voice data is input into a voice data analysis Al engine.” Applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 102 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 102 rejection.
101 Responses
As per Applicant’s argument (B), Applicant’s remarks with regard to the statutory nature of Applicant’s claimed invention are addressed above in the Office Action.
Applicant’s Amendments
Applicant amended claims recite “receiving patient analysis basic information including voice data,” “inputting the voice data is input into a voice data analysis Al engine,” “generating, via a query generating Al engine, at least one query for additional information from an analysis result of the voice data analysis Al engine,” “generating report basic information from the patient analysis basic information, the voice data, the analysis result of the voice data analysis Al engine and the additional information, and “generating a patient report based on the report basic information.” These are information processing steps that is part of Applicant’s abstract idea and does not move Applicant’s invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Generating, via a Query Generating Al Engine
Applicant has amended Applicant’s claimed invention to recite “generating, via a query generating Al engine, at least one query for additional information from an analysis result of the voice data analysis Al engine.” 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.
Example 48
Applicant’s claims are not analogous to Example 48 as Applicant’s claims are not directed to a method for speech-to-text conversion. Applicant’s claims are directed to patient reporting without more. 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