DETAILED ACTION
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
This Final Office Action is in response to the Amendment and Remarks filed 08/20/2025 and Terminal Disclaimer filed 08/28/2025. Claims 21, 24, 28, 31 and 35 are amended. Claims 21-40 are pending and considered herein.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 21 recites, wherein the abstract elements are not emboldened:
A data processing system comprising: a processor; and a machine-readable medium storing executable instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: obtaining, from a dashboard user interface of a portal application, query parameter information identifying characteristics of digital healthcare service providers to provide digital health care services to employees of an employer; converting the query parameter information from a first format to a second format to generate standardized query parameter information, the second format being associated with a standard schema; providing the standardized query parameter information as an input to a query analysis model trained using training data formatted according to the standard schema to receive query parameters formatted according to the standard schema and to output one or more categories of services associated with the query parameters formatted according to the standard schema; analyzing the standardized query parameter information using the query analysis model to obtain category information, representing one or more categories of service associated with the standardized query parameter information; providing the category information and digital healthcare service provider information as an input to a service analysis model, the digital healthcare service providers being providers that are available for providing digital healthcare solutions to the employees of the employer, the service analysis model being trained to predict digital health services available for the employer to the employees of the employer; analyzing the category information and the digital healthcare service provider information using the service analysis model to obtain digital healthcare service recommendations based on the category information and categories of digital health services included in the digital healthcare service provider information; and providing the digital healthcare service recommendations to the portal application to present on the dashboard user interface of the portal application; receiving feedback from a service recommendation unit based on user acceptance of the digital healthcare service recommendations; analyzing the feedback using a model update unit; and fine-tuning training of the query analysis model and the service analysis model based on the feedback.
Claims 28 and 35 recite substantially similar limitations. The claimed invention is broadly directed to the abstract idea of collecting healthcare service provider information, analyzing the information, and predicting results related to the healthcare service provider information based on the analyses.
The limitations of “obtaining query parameter information identifying characteristics of healthcare service providers to provide health care services to employees of an employer providing the standardized query parameter information as an input; analyzing the standardized query parameter information to obtain category information, to recognize one or more categories of services associated with the standardized query parameter information; providing the category information and healthcare service provider information as an input, the healthcare service providers being providers that are available for providing healthcare solutions to the employees of the employer, to predict digital health services available for the employer to the employees of the employer; analyzing the category information and the healthcare service provider information to obtain healthcare service recommendations based on the category information and categories of health services included in the healthcare service provider information; providing the healthcare service recommendations, receiving feedback based on user acceptance of the digital healthcare service recommendations; analyzing the feedback; and fine-tuning training based on the feedback,” as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea that covers performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, but for the generic recitation of a data processing system, a processor; and a machine-readable medium storing executable instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform operations, a user interface of a portal application, digital information, a query analysis model, a service analysis model, and converting the query parameter information from a first format to a second format to generate standardized query parameter information, the second format being associated with a standard schema, and machine learning (claim 28) analyzing healthcare service provider data and determining relevant assessments and orientation angles based on the analyses, in the context of this claim, is an abstract idea that covers performance of the limitation as organizing human activity including following rules or instructions. These recited limitations fall within certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations allowing access to healthcare service and patient data that is analyzed and a result or prediction is generated based on the analysis. This is a method of managing interactions between people. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations are categorized as methods of organizing human activity, specifically associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including a physician and her patient. Therefore, the limitation falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a). The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer and image does not remove the claims from the method of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
In addition, the claims recite under its broadest reasonable interpretation, an abstract idea that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting data processing system, a processor; and a machine-readable medium storing executable instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform operations, a user interface of a portal application, digital information, a query analysis model, a service analysis model, and converting the query parameter information from a first format to a second format to generate standardized query parameter information, the second format being associated with a standard schema, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computing device language, a system for determining a patient’s condition in the context of this claim encompasses one skilled in the pertinent art to manually determine the details of a healthcare service provider situation. 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” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of being implemented by data processing system, a processor; and a machine-readable medium storing executable instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform operations, a user interface of a portal application, digital information, a query analysis model, a service analysis model, a service recommendation unit, a model update unit, and converting the query parameter information from a first format to a second format to generate standardized query parameter information, the second format being associated with a standard schema for the sending and receiving and calculation of information related to assessment of a patient and a query analysis model trained using training data formatted according to the standard schema to receive query parameters formatted according to the standard schema and to output one or more categories of services associated with the query parameters formatted according to the standard schema. The devices in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/server/storage/display performing a generic computer function of receiving inputs, analyzing the inputs, and displaying or sending selected information, or as mathematical concepts) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The limitations appear to monopolize the abstract idea of healthcare service analysis and general techniques between a hospital and patients. Furthermore, there is no clear improvement to the underlying computer technology in the claim. The claim is thus directed to an abstract idea.
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, the additional elements of being implemented data processing system, a processor; and a machine-readable medium storing executable instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform operations, a user interface of a portal application, digital information, a query analysis model, a service analysis model, a service recommendation unit, a model update unit, and converting the query parameter information from a first format to a second format to generate standardized query parameter information, the second format being associated with a standard schema for the sending and receiving and calculation of information related to assessment of a patient and a query analysis model trained using training data formatted according to the standard schema to receive query parameters formatted according to the standard schema and to output one or more categories of services associated with the query parameters formatted according to the standard schema amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims with respect to patent eligible subject matter. The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101. Claims 22-25, 29-32 and 36-39 detail instructions for the computer system or method including service provider information, demographic information, and other categorizations which are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component and cannot provide an inventive concept. Even in combination, the additional data do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 27 and 34 recites a display and is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component and cannot provide an inventive concept. Even in combination, the display does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 26, 33 and 40 recite connection to a server is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component and cannot provide an inventive concept. Even in combination, the server does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed August 20, 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The following explains why:
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to subject matter eligibility are not persuasive. The basis for the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is still operative and the claims have been addressed with regard to the updated 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection discussed above, and considered under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG). The arguments at pages 11-13 of Applicant’s Response are not persuasive. The Examiner disagrees there is not an abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees that there is a technological improvement presented in the claims. The examiner disagrees there is a practical application that is integrated in the claims. It appears the computer technology is leveraged as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons and those stated above, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 T. MONTICELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-4871. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th; 08:30-18:30 EST.
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, MARC Q. JIMENEZ can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/WILLIAM T. MONTICELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681