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 .
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed January 2, 2026, is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4, 13, and 27 have been amended. Claim 11 has been canceled. Claims 31 and 32 are new. Claims 1-10 and 12-32 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 2, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A response is provided below in bold where appropriate.
Applicant notes Specification Objection, pg. 13 of Remarks:
Specification
In response to the Office Action's comments regarding the use of certain trade names or marks in the specification, Applicant amends the specification and submits that the identified terms are accompanied by the generic terminology and are capitalized where they appear.
Noted, but Applicant has added new matter to the disclosure teaching customizable modular components, and where Salesforce is now “such as Salesforce” therefore indicating Salesforce as an example. The amendments are not entered, and the Objection is respectfully maintained.
Applicant argues 35 USC §112 Rejection, starting pg. 13 of Remarks:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as allegedly being indefinite. This rejection is respectfully traversed for at least the following reasons.
With regard to independent claim 1 and with similar regard to independent claim 27, the Office Action asserts that "it is indefinite as to the modular components that are configured to interface with each other and configured to perform an operation (see paras. [000210] and [000213] where the specific components to interface or perform operation are not listed). Therefore, it is indefinite as to which components are configured to interface and perform operations. For examination purposes, this is interpreted to mean any two or more components can perform the functions."
With regard to the original recitation in claim 1 of "a plurality of modular components configured to interface with each other over a network," claim 1 has been clarified to recite "a plurality of modular components each configured to interface with each other over a network." As discussed during the interview, the claimed plurality of components may each be configured to interface with each other.
Applicant has amended their claim to “modular components each configured to interface with each other over a network…” where the claimed components are patient database component, journey management component, and patient interaction component.
Therefore, each component interfaces with the other over a network. This is now definite.
Regarding the issue of “wherein at least some of the plurality of modular components are configured to perform a modular component operation” and which components are performing the operation.
Applicant has amended the specification to…
“wherein at least one modular component of the plurality of modular components is configured to perform a modular component operation, and wherein the modular component operation includes at least one of: the at least one modular component broadcasting information regarding the at least one modular component to other modular components of the plurality of modular components, the information including at least one of a configuration of the at least one modular component or a function of the at least one modular component; or the at least one modular component requesting information from the other modular components including at least one of functions of the other modular components or interfaces of the other modular components.”
This is withdrawn based on further consideration.
With regard to the original recitation in claim 1 that "at least some of the plurality of modular components are configured to perform a modular component operation," claim 1 has been clarified to recite "at least one modular component of the plurality of modular components is configured to perform a modular component operation." Thus, for example, at least one of the modular components may be configured to perform the modular component operation.
Independent claim 27 is amended similarly to independent claim 1.
Meanwhile, with regard to dependent claim 11, and without acquiescing to the Office's assertions regarding the indefiniteness of "low-code," claim 11 is canceled to expedite prosecution and allowance.
In view of the foregoing, Applicant submits that the claims are not indefinite, and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is respectfully requested.
The prior 35 USC 112(b) rejection is withdrawn, based on the claim amendments. However, the amendments have caused new 35 USC 112 rejections.
Applicant argues 35 USC §101 Rejection, starting pg. 14 of Remarks:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC $ 101
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This rejection is respectfully traversed for at least the following reasons.
Independent Claims 1 and 27
Without acquiescing to the assertion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, independent claim 1 is currently amended in a manner indicated during the interview to be a step in the right direction for overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Namely, independent claim 1 is currently amended to recite technical improvements that amount to a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice analysis and/or significantly more under Step 2B. Claim 1 now recites, among other things, that "the modular component operation includes at least one of: the at least one modular component broadcasting information regarding the at least one modular component to other modular components of the plurality of modular components, the information including at least one of a configuration of the at least one modular component or a function of the at least one modular component; or the at least one modular component requesting information from the other modular components including at least one of functions of the other modular components or interfaces of the other modular components."
Respectfully, it is unclear in the teaching exactly what the modular components are.
From Applicant’s specification…
“System 2001, which may be a modular system, may be provided with the modular components 2010 including, for example, components, circuits, controllers, or the like, that are provided to perform specific aspects of operations herein, allowing for an entity that implements a patient engagement platform and/or that accesses a patient engagement platform for certain features to readily configure the patient engagement platform to perform the desired functions. In certain embodiments, modular aspects of the patient engagement platform are implemented as low-code modules, proprietary modules, or a combination of these. An example patient engagement platform may be built utilizing Salesforce modular components, customized to implement operations as set forth herein. In certain embodiments, one or more components herein may be implemented using an CRM (customer relationship management) tool, including with customization, and/or with adding full coded additional features, and/or may be implemented in a fully coded environment. In certain embodiments, utilization of a tool may facilitate quickly building certain ordinary aspects, such as implementing user interfaces, data storage, data sharing, completion of forms, providing notifications, or the like. The benefits of the present disclosure are realized, without limitation, in the selection of the content and implementation for these aspects, the selected connections between entities, the selection of notification triggers, methods, and/or content, and the decision making aspects (e.g., including determining which decisions to make, and the criteria to make those decisions) set forth herein.” [000211]
The above teaches the modular components can be components (software?), circuits, controllers, or the like. Therefore, the modular components lack specificity as to exactly what it is. Also, using Salesforce modular components is not Applicant’s invention.
Through such additional limitations, the claimed embodiments may provide an improved system architecture with reduced configuration overhead for swapping modular components. As discussed in Applicant's specification, such swapping of modular components may be done for a number of reasons. Indeed, there are "many advantages resulting from the swappability of the modular components 2010. For example, one modular component may have better functions than another for a given application, may provide more recent technological advances leading to increased efficiencies in processing and/or power, may replace a component that is no longer being actively maintained by a vendor, may provide a smaller footprint (in cost, computational need, etc.), may provide a function that is newly needed by the system 2001, or may provide other advantages that may be apparent to one skilled in the art upon reading this disclosure." Applicant's original specification at 1 [00242].
The additional limitations recited by claim 1 may allow a modular component to be swapped out with less of a need for, e.g., manual reconfiguration of the platform, including, for example, reconfiguring interfaces between the modular components, and allowing the modular components to be able to automatically communicate with a new component that has been swapped in. This may, for example, enable faster upgrades or repairs to the platform when a modular component needs to be replaced or upgraded, provide automatic detection and configuration of a new modular component when it is swapped into the platform, and reduce downtime when replacing a modular component.
Swap is not claimed in Claim 1. Further, there needs to be support/teaching as to exactly how this is done.
From Applicant’s specification…
“For example, the different modular component swapped in to replace the at least
one of the plurality of modular components 2010 may be a low-code module and may be customized via a low-code environment. Thus, an operator of the system 2001 that wishes to change operations of the one of the plurality of modular components, which may be customizable only via code or another mechanism with which the operator is not proficient, may replace the one of the plurality of modular components with this different modular component and customize it (e.g., its operations) via the low-code environment. Such an example is just one of many advantages resulting from the swappability of the modular components 2010. For example, one modular component may have better functions than another for a given application, may provide more recent technological advances leading to increased efficiencies in processing and/or power, may replace a component that is no longer being actively maintained by a vendor, may provide a smaller footprint (in cost, computational need, etc.), may provide a function that is newly needed by the system 2001, or may provide other advantages that may be apparent to one skilled in the art upon reading this disclosure.” [000242]
The above is teaching swap modules as replace a module, therefore, swapping is replacing a module. Even if this were not too high-level teaching, module as taught and claimed is too broad.
Such technical improvements amount to a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two of the Alice framework, and claim 1 is patent eligible for at least such reasons.
As discussed during the interview, inventiveness is not germane to the analysis under Step 2A Prong Two, and in fact, the MPEP notes that "Step 2A specifically excludes consideration of whether the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, in Step 2A Prong Two, examiners should ensure that they give weight to all additional elements, whether or not they are conventional, when evaluating whether a judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application." MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) (emphases added). Nevertheless, the additional limitations do also account for "significantly more" under Step 2B of the Alice analysis.
Applicant therefore submits that currently amended independent claim 1 is patent eligible. Currently amended independent claim 27 recites similar features and is patent eligible for similar reasons.
The dependent claims are patent eligible at least due to their respective dependencies from independent claims 1 and 27 as well as for the additional features that they recite.
Somebody needs to be able to execute the improvement. If the claim is replacing modules, and modules can be software, hardware, etc., that is too high level a generality and not enough to make abstract claims statutory.
Dependent Claim 4 and New Dependent Claim 32
Currently amended dependent claim 4 further recites that "the at least one modular component of the plurality of modular components is further configured to be swappable with a different modular component, and wherein the at least one modular component performs the modular component operation after being swapped into the plurality of modular components to replace the different modular component," and new dependent claim 32, which depends from claim 4, recites that "the modular component operation includes the at least one modular component broadcasting the information regarding the at least one modular component to the other modular components, the broadcasting the information triggering at least one of the other modular components to switch an interface of the at least one of the other modular components to interact with the at least one modular component."
Such additional limitations further enhance the technical improvements provided to the claimed platform and the swapping of modular components therein and amount to practical applications under Step 2A Prong Two of the Alice analysis. For example, with reference to claim 32 and in example embodiments consistent with that claim, by broadcasting its information, a new modular component is able to let other modular components know how it can interface with them, and the other modular components can be thereby triggered to switch their interfaces to properly communicate with the new modular component.
Additionally, the features of dependent claims 4 and 32 amount to significantly more than the purported abstract idea under Step 2B of the Alice analysis.
Therefore, claims 4 and 32 are patent eligible for their additional features as well as for their dependence from patent eligible claim 1.
Module is taught at too high a level of generality. The rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendments.
New Dependent Claim 31
Pursuant to discussion during the interview, new dependent claim 31 recites that "the patient database component is further configured to perform a longitudinal data action on the longitudinal data, the longitudinal data action including: tracking a frequency of use of types of patient data values for longitudinal data of at least some of the plurality of patients and determining which of the types of patient data values are more likely to be used for matching patients to clinical protocols based on the frequency of use, wherein tracking the frequency of use includes tracking at least one of frequency of access, frequency of retrieval, or frequency of updates; and storing the types of patient data values that are more likely to be used in a higher-speed memory, wherein the higher-speed memory has a higher reading speed and/or a higher writing speed than a lower-speed memory that stores at least some of the types of patient data values that are less likely to be used, to thereby provide faster retrieval of the types of patient data values that are more likely to be used."
From the specification:
“In some embodiments, the longitudinal data action 1800 may include tracking 1812, from the longitudinal data 1700 of at least some of the plurality of patients, which types of patient data values (e.g., which longitudinal data types 1701, see Fig. 17) are more likely to be used for matching patients to clinical trials. This tracking might be based on prior clinical trials. The longitudinal data action 1800 may further include storing the types of patient data values more likely to be used (e.g., accessed, retrieved, updated, etc.) in a higher-speed memory. For example, patient data values of more frequently used longitudinal data types 1701 are stored in a higher-speed memory, while other patient data values are stored in a lower-speed memory.” [000160]
The above though does not teach how higher-speed memory use would be determined. It just teaches that using values more likely to be used can result in using high speed memory. For example, there needs to be monitoring of data access speed or frequency and criteria used (e.g., threshold) for determining which values get to use the higher-speed memory.
Such claim elements integrate the purported judicial exception into a practical application by their significant improvements to patient database technology and also amount to significantly more. For example, by tracking the data types that are frequently used in matching patients to clinical trials, the claimed patient database system may store such data types in a faster memory (e.g., higher-speed memory) from which data can be retrieved more quickly; thus, the claimed system may match patients to clinical trials more quickly (e.g., in real time).
Withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is respectfully requested.
The rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendments. The amendment in Claim 27 regarding modular component raises an issue as to exactly what the modular is as it can be a component, circuit, controller, etc. In other words, this is very broad and being claimed at a high level of generality.
Applicant argues 35 USC §103 Rejection, starting pg. 17 of Remarks:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Based on the claim amendments and further search and consideration, the prior art rejection is withdrawn.
Specification
The use of the terms “Salesforce” and “Amazon Connect”, which are a trade names or a marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: (underlined)
a plurality of modular components each configured to interface with each other over a network, the plurality of modular components including:
a journey management component configured to curate a journey of the first patient through the first one of the plurality of clinical protocols, the journey including a plurality of touch points between the system and the first patient; and
a patient interaction component configured to:
receive at least one patient data value from the first patient and provide the at least one data value to the patient database component, wherein the patient database component includes the at least one data value in the plurality of patient data values of the longitudinal data of the first patient; and
interact with the first patient according to at least one of the plurality of touch points curated by the journey management component,
the at least one modular component broadcasting information regarding the at least one modular component to other modular components…
the at least one modular component requesting information from the other modular components…
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 and 12-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-10 and 12-32 are directed to a system or method, which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method claim 27 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to system claim 1.
Claim 27 recites the limitations of:
A method of providing a patient engagement platform for a plurality of clinical protocols, the method comprising:
establishing and updating, with a patient database component, longitudinal data for a plurality of patients including a first patient, wherein the longitudinal data for the first patient includes a plurality of patient data values, and wherein the patient database component stores the longitudinal data for a time duration longer than a first one of the plurality of clinical protocols to compare at least some of the longitudinal data of the first patient to requirements of the plurality of clinical protocols and match the first patient to at least one of the plurality of clinical protocols thereform;
curating, with a journey management component, a journey of the first patient through the first one of the plurality of clinical protocols, the journey including a plurality of touch points with the first patient;
receiving, with a patient interaction component, at least one patient data value from the first patient and providing the at least one data value to the patient database component, wherein the patient database component includes the at least one data value in the plurality of patient data values of the longitudinal data of the first patient;
interacting, with the patient interaction component, with the first patient according to at least one of the plurality of touch points curated by the journey management component,
wherein the patient database component, the journey management component, and the patient interaction component are included in a plurality of modular components each configured to interface with each other over a network; and
performing, with at least one modular component of the plurality of modular components, a modular component operation,
wherein the modular component operation includes at least one of:
the at least one modular component broadcasting information regarding the at least one modular component to other modular components of the plurality of modular components, the information including at least one of a configuration of the at least one modular component or a function of the at least one modular component; or
the at least one modular component requesting information from the other modular components including at least one of functions of the other modular components or interfaces of the other modular components.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim recites elements, in bold above, which covers performance of the limitation as managing personal behavior. Establishing and updating longitudinal data for a plurality of patients including a first patient, curating a journey of the first patient through clinical protocols, receiving patient data value from the first patient, and interacting with the first patient according to the curated touch points is managing personal behavior by following rules or instructions. Giving the claim it’s broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the claims are also abstract and managing relationships or interactions between people as care providers interact with patients and their data and touch points. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 1 and 19 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite: network (Claim 1); network (Claim 27). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The various components (patient database component, journey management component, patient interaction component) appear to be software code (specification, para. [00092]). The modular components are undefined, broad, and can be software, circuits, controllers, etc. performing some type of function (see para. [000211] of the specification). Therefore, modular components are something (software or hardware) that performs a function and is recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1 and 27 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Steps such as receiving and storing are steps that are considered insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using general computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(d), II). Thus claims 1 and 27 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-26 and 28-32 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 27 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The claims themselves are either abstract or further limiting abstract elements. Claims 5 and 6 recite neural network which is applied at a high level of generality. Claims 14-16 recite external device and claims 17-18 recite wearable device at a high level of generality. Claim 18 recites monitors at a high level of generality. Claim 31 recites storing in higher versus lower speed memory, which is recited at a high level of generality and no indication of an improvement to technology itself. Therefore, the claims 2-10, 12-26 and 28-32 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-10 and 12-32 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention..
Claim 1 recites “the at least one modular component broadcasting information regarding the at least one modular component to other modular components of the plurality of modular components, the information including at least one of a configuration of the at least one modular component or a function of the at least one modular component; or
the at least one modular component requesting information from the other modular components including at least one of functions of the other modular components or interfaces of the other modular components”
An adequate written description for a computer-implemented functional claim limitation contains both the computer and the algorithm that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement (MPEP § 2161.01).
From Applicant’s specification…
“System 2001, which may be a modular system, may be provided with the modular components 2010 including, for example, components, circuits, controllers, or the like, that are provided to perform specific aspects of operations herein, allowing for an entity that implements a patient engagement platform and/or that accesses a patient engagement platform for certain features to readily configure the patient engagement platform to perform the desired functions…” [000211]
Therefore, there is no written description of how and what (component, circuit, controllers, etc.) modular components are implemented. Claims 27 and 32 have similar problems.
Claims 2-10, 12-26, and 28-32 are further rejected as they depend from their respective independent claim.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the at least one modular component broadcasting information regarding the at least one modular component to other modular components of the plurality of modular components, the information including at least one of a configuration of the at least one modular component or a function of the at least one modular component; or the at least one modular component requesting information from the other modular components including at least one of functions of the other modular components or interfaces of the other modular components” where it is indefinite as to modular component broadcasting or requesting information as modular can be components, circuits, controllers, or the like (para. [000211]). For examination purposes, this was considered to be computer software. Claims 27 and 32 have similar problems.
Claim 31 recites “determining which of the types of patient data values are more likely to be user for matching patients…” and “storing… values that are more likely to be used…” where “more likely” is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. There is no claimed standard or basis for more likely, therefore, this could be anything.
Claims 2-10, 12-26, and 28-32 are further rejected as they depend from their respective independent claim.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art Rejection
A prior art search was conducted but does not result in a prior art rejection at this time. The best prior art found to date is Pub. No. US 2025/0299828 to Chaganti et al. who teaches database and health journey but fails to teach database with matching and specific components.
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 KENNETH BARTLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5230. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 - 4:00 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, SHAHID MERCHANT can be reached at (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.
/KENNETH BARTLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684