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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 18, 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19, and 22 have been amended. Claims 3, 12, and 21 have been canceled. Claims 23 is new. Now, claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-20, 22, and 23 are pending.
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, 2, 4-11, 13-20, 22, and 23 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 22, and 23 are drawn to a method, claims 10, 11, and 13-18 are drawn to a system, and claims 19-20 are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable storage media which are one of the statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recites a method, a system, and/or a non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising the following:
Receiving a plurality of system data sets and a plurality of user data sets associated with a plurality of user profiles;
Determining by applying one or more filters to the plurality of system data sets;
Determining from among the plurality of user profiles, a plurality of target user profiles associated with a first protocol;
Determining from among the plurality of user data sets, a plurality of target user data sets associated with the plurality of target user profiles;
Determining configured with a plurality of model parameters, a plurality of profile-level scores for the plurality of target user profiles based on the plurality of target user data sets, the plurality of profile-level scores indicating a likelihood of protocol change from the first protocol to a second protocol different from the first protocol;
generating based on at least a subset of the plurality of profile-level scores the plurality of target user profiles, a system-level score;
initiating performance of one or more actions in association based on the system-level score; and
receiving, established to provide automated data transfer, updated data for one or more of the plurality of target user data sets includinq an outcome indicatinq an associated target user profile of the one or more of the plurality of target user data sets has changed from the first protocol to the second protocol, wherein is updated in response to receiving the updated data by fine-tuning one or more of the plurality of model parameters based on the outcome.
These steps amount to resource allocation which are functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes with or without physical aid).
Additionally, these steps are directed to distributing human assets to ensure adherence to protocols, which amounts to methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
by one or more processors;
a plurality of systems;
a target system;
a plurality of data sources;
a machine-learning model.
in real-time via an application programming interface.
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“by one or more processors”; “a plurality of systems”; “a target system”; “a plurality of data sources”; “a machine-learning model”, “in real-time via an application programming interface”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving, determining, generating, initiating, and receiving). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 33, 49, 51, 118, 122, and 131 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 10 and 19 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Dependent claims
Dependent Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 13-18, 20, and 22-23 add further limitations which are also directed to an abstract idea.
For example, Claims 7 and 16 sets forth:
Claims 7 and 16 set forth:
wherein each user data set of the plurality of user data sets includes a time-series data set, the time-series data set comprising a chronological sequence of entries, each entry of the chronological sequence of entries corresponding to one or more protocols associated with the user profile and arranged according to an order in which the one or more protocols were employed or recorded.
Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of allocating resources, which are functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work and to distributing human assets to ensure adherence to protocols, which amounts to methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims as a whole integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Prong Two of Revised Step 2A and that similar to the machine learning-related claim at issue in Ex Parte Desjardins, when evaluating the present claim as a whole, at least the additional elements reflect an improvement of how the model itself operates, and not, for example, the alleged abstract idea.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as written are directed towards resource allocation, specifically identifying and prioritizing healthcare providers who are most likely to prescribe a specific drug/protocol. These steps amount to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes with or without physical aid). Additionally, these steps are directed to distributing human assets to ensure adherence to protocols, which amounts to methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people)
The additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment. Accordingly, the claims do not recite additional limitations that integrate the exception into a Practical Application, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
Questions of preemption are inherent in the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (incorporated in the 2014 IEG as Steps 2A and 2B), and are resolved by using this framework to distinguish between preemptive claims, and "those that integrate the building blocks into something more...the latter pose no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible". This framework found that the claims do tie up the exception. (See the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). (Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements of “by one or more processors”; “a plurality of systems”; “a target system”; “a plurality of data sources”; “a machine-learning model”, “in real-time via an application programming interface”. The elements in each of these independent claims are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., “by one or more processors”; “a plurality of systems”; “a target system”; “a plurality of data sources”; “a machine-learning model”, “in real-time via an application programming interface”), such that the claims are directed to utilizing general purpose computer components (Application Specification [0032], [0121], and [0132])). As such, the limitations amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The present claims in the instant application are not analogous to Ex Parte Desjardins. The present claims are drawn to determining resource allocation and not to improving system performance. The Examiner asserts that training the machine learning is recited at such a high level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106), where nothing specific with regard to training machine learning are claimed at all. The Examiner again asserts that the computer and hardware is not what is being improved, but rather, hopefully, the way the human uses the hardware is being improved, which merely amount to the hardware being used as a tool for implementing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05). The Examiner asserts that using general purpose computer hardware to implement the abstract idea does not make the claims eligible. The claims in the instant application are not analogous to the framework in Desjardins. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Remotely managing and adapting monitoring programs using machine learning predictions (US 11316941 B1) teaches remotely managing and adapting monitoring programs using machine learning predictions. In some implementations, data describing a monitoring program that involves collecting data over a period of time from geographically distributed devices is accessed. Composition characteristics of the monitoring pro group for the monitoring program are determined. Predicted composition characteristics are generated for a portion of the monitoring group predicted to comply with the monitoring program requirements for the period of time. It is determined whether the predicted composition characteristics indicate at least a minimum level of diversity among the portion of the monitoring group. One or more devices associated with the monitoring program are communicated with.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amber Misiaszek whose telephone number is 571-270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30, First Friday Off.
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, Fonya Long can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights