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 .
Status of claims
Claims 85-88, 91-100, 102-107 have been reviewed and addressed below. Claims 1-84, 89-80 and 101 has been cancelled.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Amendments filed on 12/17/25 has been entered and are addressed below.
Applicant argues the claim does not recite a judicial exception since it does not recite fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interaction and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claim sill falls under certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, the data that’s being determined are particular to a person data which is used in the analysis, e.g. biological variables. Additionally the analysis falls under following rules or instructions. Though applicant argues that claim incorporates a practical application that improves the technical field in which it resides by more accurately determining appropriate contraceptives, this does not improve the computer technology itself, rather uses generic computer components to execute the identified abstract idea.
Claim 93 still falls under certain methods of organizing human activity since it is just generating a score using a machine learning algorithm.
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 85-88, 91-100, 102-107 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 85-88, 91-100, 102-107 are drawn to method, system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 85, 97, 102 recite “determining a contraceptive recommendation indicating a first contraceptive using a contraceptive machine learning algorithm wherein the first contraceptive is determined from a plurality of contraceptives, wherein each contraceptive of said plurality of contraceptives is associated with one or more contraceptive specific side effects and wherein one or more of said one or more contraceptive specific side effects is corrected to one or more biological variables wherein said one or more biological variables comprise a hormonal state”, “measuring one or more facial metrics of a subject based on one or more images of said subject by utilizing a facial metric machine learning algorithm comprising a neural network”, “determining the hormonal state of said subject based, at least in part, on the one or more facial metrics by utilizing the facial metric machine learning algorithm to quantify subject hormone levels on an androgen axis, an estrogen axis, or both”, “generating a subject side effect factor associated with the one or more contraceptive-specific side effects specific to the first contraceptive based on the hormonal state of the subject”, “updating a relationship between the first contraceptive and the one or more biological variables based on the subject side effect factor, wherein the relationship indicates a likelihood of experiencing a contraceptive specific side effect when administering the first contraceptive and wherein the updating the relationship results in increased accuracy of determining a contraceptive based on the one or more contraceptive side effects”, “updating the contraceptive recommendation by: changing the contraceptive recommendation to indicate a second contraceptive; or changing the contraceptive recommendation to indicate that a specific contraceptive should not be taken”.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “computer”, “contraceptive”, “one or more processors”, “memory”, “non-transitory computer readable medium”, which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims do not recite the additional element which can considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed displaying limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
paragraph 101 that “Computer system 500 may include one or more processors 501, a memory 503, and a storage 508 that communicate with each other, and with other components, via a bus 540. The bus 540 may also link a display 532, one or more input devices 533 (which may, for example, include a keypad, a keyboard, a mouse, a stylus, etc.), one or more output devices 534, one or more storage devices 535, and various tangible storage media 536. All of these elements may interface directly or via one or more interfaces or adaptors to the bus 540. For instance, the various tangible storage media 536 can interface with the bus 540 via storage medium interface 526. Computer system 500 may have any suitable physical form, including but not limited to one or more integrated circuits (ICs), printed circuit boards (PCBs), mobile handheld devices (such as mobile telephones or PDAs), laptop or notebook computers, distributed computer systems, computing grids, or server”.
The claims do not recite the additional element which can considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed displaying limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 86-98,100, 103-107 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, 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 concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached on (571) 270-1360. 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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684