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
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-20 and 23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection of the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims do not recite an abstract idea but this argument lacks substantiation and appears to be a mere assertion. As such, the argument is moot.
Applicant argues the claims recite technical improvements because the multiple devices, times and environments in which the data is captured provide a more complete picture of a person’s health. However, the claims merely recite the capturing of this data and the determination of a person’t health based on this data which is further formatted for consistency between devices used to capture the data. The Office asserts that the claims merely recite the result of the process, determining a person’s health status or likelihood that their status will continue, but do not recite how the determination is made using the data collected or any particular inventive or practical application of capturing data. In short, the claims recite generically capturing data and generically analyzing that data and then applying that analysis in the form of a health score and updating a policy based on the analysis.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
1. A computer system for projecting lengths of time that current health levels of users will be maintained based upon data received from different devices in different formats at different periods of time, the computer system comprising:
at least one memory with instructions stored thereon; and
at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
receive first user data from a first client device, wherein the first user data is received in a first computer messaging format according to a first computer messaging protocol associated with the first client device and is associated with health of a user and a first time period;
convert the first user data in the first computer messaging format to converted first user data stored in a database in a predefined computer messaging format according to a receiving message protocol associated with the computer system, the converted first user data comprising one or more data strings comprising a first user identifier (UID) associated with the user and first health data converted from the first user data and included in a first location in the one or more data strings based at least in part upon the predefined computer messaging format so that the first health data can be utilized, along with additional data from a period of time different from the first time period and a device different from the first client device, to determine a likelihood that the user will maintain a current level of health over a time period corresponding to a term of a policy associated with the user;
receive second user data from a second client device, wherein the second user data is received in a second computer messaging format according to a second computer messaging protocol associated with the second client device and is associated with the health of the user and a second time period, wherein the second client device, the second computer messaging protocol, and the second time period are different from the first client device, the first computer messaging protocol, and the first time period
convert the second user data in the second computer messaging format to converted second user data stored in the database in the predefined computer messaging format according to the receiving message protocol associated with the computer system, the converted second user data comprising at least one data string comprising the first UID and second health data converted from the second user data and included in a second location in the at least one data string based at least in part upon the predefined computer messaging format so that the second health data and the first health data can be analyzed in the same format to determine the likelihood that the user will maintain the current level of health over the time period;
retrieve the first health data and the second health data from the database based upon the converted first user data including the first UID and the first health data in the first location in the one or more data strings and the converted second user data including the first UID and the second health data in the second location in the at least one data string;
determine a health score representing the likelihood that the user will maintain the current level of health for the period of time corresponding to the term of the policy associated with the user wherein the health score is determined based at least in part upon analysis of the health of the user over time, wherein the analysis is performed based upon the first health data and the second health data comprising data received from different devices over different time periods and indicating a change in the health of the user between the first time period and the second time period; and
update at least one parameter of the policy based at least in part upon the health score.
The underlined limitations represent a mental process because the steps may be performed mentally by a user with the aid of a pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims also comprise A computer system comprising:
at least one memory with instructions stored thereon; and
at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory, and client devices, databases and computer protocols. Each of these are generally recited and amount to adding the words “apply it”, or the like. Using computers as a tool to implement an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, similar to the prong two step 2A analysis, the claims comprise an abstract idea with the words “apply it”, or the like.
Claims 8 and 15 are similarly rejected.
Claims 3 and 7 defines the messaging format and devices, a further application of adding the words “apply it”.
Claims 4-6 define the particular data, narrowing the abstract idea.
Th remaining dependent claims are similar.
The dependent claims merely narrow the abstract idea or include additional elements amounting to adding the words “apply it”, or the like. As a whole, and in combination, the claims do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more, as discussed above.
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 concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights