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 .
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 1-18 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 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a method” (i.e. “a process”), and claim 10 is directed to is directed to “a system” (i.e. “a machine”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “enhancing clinical readiness,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“assessing needs by surveying osteopathic clinicians across medical specialties to identify frequently assessed chief complaints;
planning instructional content by analyzing existing curricula and collaborating with experienced physicians to determine relevant content for the identified chief complaints;
developing a mobile application with a user friendly interface and capabilities for video interaction;
producing instructional videos demonstrating clinical skills for the planned content utilizing simulations or real-life scenarios;
integrating content within the mobile application organized by core medical specialties;
beta testing the mobile application and gathering usability, relevance and satisfaction feedback from osteopathic medical students;
improving the mobile application based on the gathered feedback data;
launching the mobile application including press releases and social media promotion; and
planning regular content updates to keep instructional videos and information current.”
Per claim 10:
“assessing needs by surveying osteopathic clinicians across medical specialties to identify frequently assessed chief complaints;
planning instructional content by analyzing existing curricula and collaborating with experienced physicians to determine relevant content for the identified chief complaints;
developing a mobile application with a user friendly interface and capabilities for video interaction;
producing instructional videos demonstrating clinical skills for the planned content utilizing simulations or real-life scenarios;
integrating content within the mobile application organized by core medical specialties;
beta testing the mobile application and gathering usability, relevance and satisfaction feedback from osteopathic medical students;
improving the mobile application based on the gathered feedback data;
launching the mobile application including press releases and social media promotion; and
planning regular content updates to keep instructional videos and information current.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “one or more hardware processors,” is merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “enhancing clinical readiness,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “one or more hardware processors,” is claimed, this is a generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing element. As evidence that this is a generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing element (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses this in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such an additional element to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “one or more hardware processors,” is best described in para. [0025] as follows:
“[0025] The one or more computing platforms 102 may include one or more processors 126 for processing information and executing instructions or operations. One or more processors 126 may be any type of general or specific purpose processor. In some cases, multiple processors 126 may be utilized according to other embodiments. In fact, the one or more processors 126 may include one or more of general-purpose computers, special purpose computers, microprocessors, digital signal processors (DSPs), field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), and processors based on a multi-core processor architecture, as examples. In some cases, the one or more processors 126 may be remote from the one or more computing platforms 102, such as disposed within a remote platform like the one or more remote platforms 126 of FIG. 1.” As such, the Applicant’s written description of the claimed “one or more hardware processors,” merely provides a laundry list of processors or computers. As such, this is reasonably interpreted to be a generic, well-known, and conventional data computing element that is considered ubiquitous, standard off-the-shelf equipment that is commercially available today.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 10. Therefore, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recite the limitation “the identified chief complaints.” The limitation “assessed chief complaints” is originally introduced in claim 1 and 10, respectively. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the assessed chief complaints”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1 and 10. Therefore, claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-9 and 11-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 10.
Claims 1 and 10 recite the limitation “the planned content utilizing simulations.” The limitation is not originally introduced in claim 1 or 10. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-9 and 11-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 10.
Claims 1 and 10 recite the limitation “the gathered feedback data.” The limitation “usability, relevance and satisfaction feedback” is originally introduced in claim 1 and 10, respectively. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the usability, relevance and satisfaction feedback ); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1 and 10. Therefore, claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-9 and 11-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 10.
Claims 1 and 10 recite multiple versions of the limitation “content.” The limitation “instructional content,” and “relevant content,” are originally introduced in claim 1 and 10, respectively. As such, the subsequent limitations either (1) not following antecedent basis; or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitations of claim 1 and 10. Therefore, claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-9 and 11-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715