CTFR 18/678,178 CTFR 97442 DETAILED ACTION This is responsive to amendments filed on 03/16/2026 in which claims 1,6,8,and 9 are presented for examination; Claims 1and 6 have been amended. Claims 2-5 and 7 have been canceled. Claims 8 -9 have been newly added. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1,6,8,and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claim 1: Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes, it’s a machine. Step 2a Prong 1 (judicial exception) Step 2A (1): “Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes , the claim comes under mental process and mathematical concepts. Claim 1 recites: “A medical information processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to: acquire(i) a first medical data group that is registered in a database, associated with patient ID of a subject to be diagnosed, and is at least one of subject information, medical images, test results and medical history, and (ii) a second medical data group that is registered in the database , associated with patient ID of other subjects different from the subject to be diagnosed, and is at least one of subject information, medical images, test results and medical history; determine a first position in a model manifold associated with a statistical model by projecting the first medical data group onto the model manifold, and determine second positions in the model manifold by projecting the second medical data group onto the model manifold; calculate a geodesic distance based on the first position and the second position. determine a position having a shorter geodesic distance with the first position than a threshold value among a plurality of the second positions respectively corresponding to a plurality of the other subjects; determine an other subject of the plurality of the other subjects corresponding to the determined position as a similar subject of the subject to be diagnosed; determine a disease that the similar subject is suffering from as a disease candidate for the subject to be diagnosed; and output the disease candidate as diagnostic support information based on the geodesic distance.” All the limitations above are abstract idea related to the mental process (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)) and mathematical concepts with the exception of bold and underlined limitations. Claim language pertains to gathering/acquiring medical data from different groups, which can be done using pen and paper. Any statistical technique can be used to place a specific medical group using acquired data to output patient outcomes based on evidences(manifold positions). The distance between different manifold positions(determined using statistical techniques) can be calculated using computational algorithms.(mathematical) . Any patient data (corresponding to a group) can be retrieved from a data base , which includes patient information, medical image data , medical history etc. A disease can be determined based on the similarity of the symptoms among the patients in a group. Step 2A(2): Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. NO The claim does recite additional elements; however they don’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. processing apparatus ( 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)) processing circuitry( 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)) Step 2B : evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception ? NO As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Regarding claim 6, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. It is a method claim. Regarding claim 8, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. In addition , it adds the additional elements of “information processing apparatus”, “processing circuitry”. Under step 2A, prong two, the additional elements don’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as merely 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). As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Regarding claim 9, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. It is a method claim. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed on 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Remarks - 35 USC § 101 In remarks, Pg. 6, applicant contends: “as amended, the claimed subject matter specifically defines a technical data conversion process that generates diagnostic support information from a first medical data group and a second medical data group. In particular, the claimed subject matter recites determining a first position in a model manifold associated with a statistical model by projecting the first medical data group onto the model manifold, determining second positions in the model manifold by projecting the second medical data group onto the model manifold, and calculating a geodesic distance based on the first and second positions. The claimed subject matter further recites determining a position having a shorter geodesic distance than a threshold value, determining a corresponding other subject as a similar subject, determining a disease that the similar subject is suffering from as a disease candidate for the subject to be diagnosed, and outputting the disease candidate as diagnostic support information. These steps collectively define a specific data processing pipeline that converts heterogeneous medical data into diagnostic support information through manifold projection and geodesic distance evaluation.” The above argued language falls under abstract idea grouping of mental process (calculating the geodesic, comparing it with threshold etc...; is observing, evaluating, and judging); furthermore calculating geodesic distance based on first position and second position, comparing it with threshold, etc... also falls within mathematical concept. In fact, by definition, geodesic distance is the shortest path between two points along the surface (manifold). The applicant is merely presenting conclusory statement, that concepts described above are more than mental concept, or mathematical formula, and the examiner is ignoring the specific technical data processing. Also, data collected in both groups states at least one from the given list; under broadest reasonable interpretation, the data collected in both groups could be same, and doesn’t require to be heterogeneous. In addition, even if the data was heterogenous, and being processed to perform claimed steps; the data conversation will fall within apply it level, as the claims don’t recite any technical detail as to how the heterogenous data is being processed, and converted for such analysis; and how that provides an improvement to multimodal data processing techniques. In remarks, Pg. 7, applicant contends: “Moreover, each type of data used in the conversion process is clearly defined in the claims. The first medical data group is defined as a medical data group registered in a database and associated with a patient ID of a subject to be diagnosed, and includes at least one of subject information, medical images, test results, or medical history. The second medical data group is likewise defined as medical data registered in the database and associated with patient IDs of other subjects. The diagnostic support information produced by the system is also clearly defined as a disease candidate determined based on diseases suffered by similar subjects identified through the geodesic distance analysis. Thus, the amended claims describe specific technical data processing involving defined data structures and a defined sequence of computational operations rather than a generalized mental process.” It is not clear how defining each of the data provides specific technical data processing; Also, even if it provides specific technical data processing, how does that specific data processing, improves the data processing techniques? As presented, the claims make it clear that data is being organized, which also falls under mental process, and further under organizing human activity. In remarks, Pg. 7, applicant contends: “furthermore, the claimed operations cannot reasonably be characterized as a mental process that can be performed using pen and paper. Projecting heterogeneous medical data groups onto a model manifold associated with a statistical model and calculating geodesic distances within that manifold requires specialized mathematical processing performed by processing circuitry and cannot practically be carried out mentally. The claimed subject matter therefore does not merely recite observing medical data and making a judgment, but instead recites a specific computerized technique for processing complex medical datasets.” The claims, don’t present any detail with regard to any specific detail of the circuitry. The examiner is assuming, that applicant is stating that performing the claimed mathematical functions, makes the circuitry specialized. The claims, or the specification have not provided any details that would require a specific processing circuitry to perform the claimed limitations; neither it have provided any support that the claimed mathematical process can’t be performed by generic computer. Please note, that mathematical process is mathematical concept, which is abstract idea; and generic circuitry is being applied to implement the abstract idea. In remarks, Pg. 7-8, applicant contends: “even if, arguendo, the projection and geodesic distance calculations were considered mathematical concepts, the claimed subject matter integrates those operations into a practical application. The claimed subject matter applies the manifold-based similarity analysis to identify similar subjects in a medical database and to determine diseases suffered by those similar subjects as disease candidates for the subject to be diagnosed. The system then outputs the disease candidate as diagnostic support information that supports medical diagnosis. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter applies the alleged mathematical concepts in a concrete medical information processing environment to produce a specific and useful diagnostic support output.” The above arguments makes it further clear that claims are ineligible; similarity analysis itself is mathematical concept, furthermore it can fall under mental step of evaluation. The above described steps falls under observing, evaluating (determining similarity), and judgement (determining disease candidates). Remarks – Prior Art Applicant’s arguments with regard to 35 USC § 102 are persuasive , and the prior art has been removed . Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUMA WASEEM whose telephone number is (571)272-1316. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday(9:00am - 5:00 pm) 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, Jason B. Dunham can be reached on (571) 272-8109. 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. /HUMA WASEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 3686 /JASON B DUNHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/678,178 Page 2 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/678,178 Page 3 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/678,178 Page 4 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/678,178 Page 5 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/678,178 Page 6 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/678,178 Page 7 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/678,178 Page 8 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/678,178 Page 9 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/678,178 Page 10 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/678,178 Page 11 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/678,178 Page 12 Art Unit: 3686
Prosecution Insights