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
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-18 have been examined. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 17-17 have been amended. Claims 2, 6, 10, 14 have been canceled.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 recite(s) an apparatus, which is within a statutory category (machine. Claim 9 recite(s) a method, which is within a statutory category (process). Claim 17 recite(s) a non-transitory readable medium, which is within a statutory category (manufacture).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A (MPEP2106.04-.07), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The limitation of Independent claims 1-17 recites at least one abstract idea. Specifically, claim 1 recites the steps of
A support apparatus comprising:
at least one memory, and at least one processor configured to:
store patient information including a target of a patient, patient conditions, and actual patient problems entered for respective periods;
at a first time point A, calculate a predicted patient problem for a first period Ta starting at the first time point A by retrieving, from stored past patients whose patient information has a degree of similarity equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold, a patient problem actually dealt with for the past patients in a corresponding first period;
at an alert output determination time point after a second period Tb shorter than the first period Ta from the first time point A, calculate a matching level between an actual patient problem and a predicted patient problem, the actual patient problem being a problem of the patient that has been actually dealt with for the patient, and the predicted patient problem being a predicted problem of the patient;
define, for the actual patient problem in the second period Tb. high-frequency items whose frequency is equal to or higher than a predetermined second threshold Th2;
calculate a total number Na of the high-frequency items and a number Nb
of the high-frequency items that are also included in the predicted patient problem;
calculate the matching level as a ratio Nb/Na;
determine a type of the alert based on the actual patient problem in a case where the matching level is lower than a predetermined first threshold Th1, including:
(i) determining whether a past matching level Cb between the actual patient problem and a past actual patient problem in a preceding first period Ta is equal to or greater than a predetermined third threshold Th3 to classify Case A1 or Case A2: and
(ii) determining whether character strings of items included in the actual patient problem match or are similar to character strings of words included in the target to classify Case B1 or Case B2
perform control so that an alert is output to a user terminal of a team leader in a different form according to the determined type of the alert including display by different colors corresponding to the alert type.
The above underlined limitations constitutes a) mathematical concepts because this limitation could be performed by the professionals to calculate, to formulate the data between the actual patient problem and the predicted patient problem using mathematical formular. Accordingly, the claim is directed toward at least one abstract idea.
The limitation of ”perform control so that an alert is output to a user terminal of a team leader in a different form according to the determined type of the alert including display by different colors corresponding to the alert type” constitutes (b) certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practice including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk; etc., commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, etc., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, following rules or instruction, etc.) because this limitation could be performed by the user to determine the current patient problem and generate the alert output. Accordingly, the claim is directed toward at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for claim 1 and claim 17 is identical as the abstract idea for claim 9, because the only difference between claim 1, 17 and claim 9 is that claim 9 recites method, whereas claims 1 recites an apparatus, whereas claim 17 recites a non-transitory readable medium.
Furthermore, the following depending claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract.
Dependent claims 3-5, 7-8, 11-13, 15-16, 18 recite further steps of calculating a matching level between the actual patient problem with predicted patient problem, alculating ration of a number of items, and thus part of mathematical concepts.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim, as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in MPEP2106.04-07, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites
A support apparatus comprising:
at least one memory, and at least one processor configured to:
store patient information including a target of a patient, patient conditions, and actual patient problems entered for respective periods;
at a first time point A, calculate a predicted patient problem for a first period Ta starting at the first time point A by retrieving, from stored past patients whose patient information has a degree of similarity equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold, a patient problem actually dealt with for the past patients in a corresponding first period;
at an alert output determination time point after a second period Tb shorter than the first period Ta from the first time point A, calculate a matching level between an actual patient problem and a predicted patient problem, the actual patient problem being a problem of the patient that has been actually dealt with for the patient, and the predicted patient problem being a predicted problem of the patient;
define, for the actual patient problem in the second period Tb. high-frequency items whose frequency is equal to or higher than a predetermined second threshold Th2;
calculate a total number Na of the high-frequency items and a number Nb
of the high-frequency items that are also included in the predicted patient problem;
calculate the matching level as a ratio Nb/Na;
determine a type of the alert based on the actual patient problem in a case where the matching level is lower than a predetermined first threshold Th1, including:
(i) determining whether a past matching level Cb between the actual patient problem and a past actual patient problem in a preceding first period Ta is equal to or greater than a predetermined third threshold Th3 to classify Case A1 or Case A2: and
(ii) determining whether character strings of items included in the actual patient problem match or are similar to character strings of words included in the target to classify Case B1 or Case B2
perform control so that an alert is output to a user terminal of a team leader in a different form according to the determined type of the alert including display by different colors corresponding to the alert type. ((merely data gathering steps as noted, see MPEP 2106.05(g))).
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of ”calculation unit implemented at least by the hardware and configured to calculate a matching level between an actual patient problem and a predicted patient problem, the actual patient problem being a problem of the patient that has been actually dealt with for the patient, and the predicted patient problem being a predicted problem of the patient”, this is a pre-solution activity. The examiner submits that this additional limitation does not provide any additional element, but only merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner of pre- solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea
Regarding the additional limitation of ” determine a type of the alert based on the actual patient problem in a case where the matching level is lower than a predetermined first threshold Th1, including: (i) determining whether a past matching level Cb between the actual patient problem and a past actual patient problem in a preceding first period Ta is equal to or greater than a predetermined third threshold Th3 to classify Case A1 or Case A2: and (ii) determining whether character strings of items included in the actual patient problem match or are similar to character strings of words included in the target to classify Case B1 or Case B2; perform control so that an alert is output to a user terminal of a team leader in a different form according to the determined type of the alert including display by different colors corresponding to the alert type”, this is a post-solution activity. The examiner submits that this additional limitation does not provide any additional element, but only merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner of post- solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea ((merely data gathering steps as noted, see MPEP 2106.05(g)))
Specifically, the use of hardware, processor, memory, computer as in claims 1, 9, 17 is not positively claimed in the claim as it defines the service but is claimed insufficient to a structure or apparatus that it represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of facilitating patient medical model data in a computer environment. The claimed computer components, i.e. a processor, are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the processing medical data. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 element of using a processor to perform both processing data using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to implement and revise a wellbeing plan, a productivity, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see 2019 PEG and MPEP § 2106.05).
For these reasons, representative independent claims 1, 9, 17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. (The Examiner notes the mere recitation of a processor, memory, does not take the claim out of the mathematical concept or organizing human activity. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea)
The remaining dependent claim limitations are not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, independent claims 1, 9, 17 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For claims 1, 9, 17 limit the use of a hardware, processor, etc.... The specification merely describes the use of these computing components. The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using these computer devices as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018).), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). Further the use of generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patient-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”).
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 USC 101. Therefore, claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-18 have been under 35USC101 as being held patent ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter Over the Prior Art
The primary reason for indicating allowability over the prior art is the inclusions of the following limitations in the combination as recited.
A support apparatus comprising:
at least one memory, and at least one processor configured to:
store patient information including a target of a patient, patient conditions, and actual patient problems entered for respective periods;
at a first time point A, calculate a predicted patient problem for a first period Ta starting at the first time point A by retrieving, from stored past patients whose patient information has a degree of similarity equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold, a patient problem actually dealt with for the past patients in a corresponding first period;
at an alert output determination time point after a second period Tb shorter than the first period Ta from the first time point A, calculate a matching level between an actual patient problem and a predicted patient problem, the actual patient problem being a problem of the patient that has been actually dealt with for the patient, and the predicted patient problem being a predicted problem of the patient;
define, for the actual patient problem in the second period Tb. high-frequency items whose frequency is equal to or higher than a predetermined second threshold Th2;
calculate a total number Na of the high-frequency items and a number Nb
of the high-frequency items that are also included in the predicted patient problem;
calculate the matching level as a ratio Nb/Na;
determine a type of the alert based on the actual patient problem in a case where the matching level is lower than a predetermined first threshold Th1, including:
(i) determining whether a past matching level Cb between the actual patient problem and a past actual patient problem in a preceding first period Ta is equal to or greater than a predetermined third threshold Th3 to classify Case A1 or Case A2: and
(ii) determining whether character strings of items included in the actual patient problem match or are similar to character strings of words included in the target to classify Case B1 or Case B2
perform control so that an alert is output to a user terminal of a team leader in a different form according to the determined type of the alert including display by different colors corresponding to the alert type.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remark filed 12/03/2025, the Applicant argued that In step 2A, Prong one, claim rejection under 35USC101, as amended, the claim is not recited at a high level of abstraction, but it requires acquiring and storing specific, structured psatient information; predicting next-period problems from similar past patient and computing a quantatyive matching level at a defined art-determination time point; threshold based machine control to cause particular alert output.
In response to the Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under broadest reasonable interpretation of amended claims, the claim recites as a whole, mathematical concepts and a method of organizing human activity because the claim recites calculate a total number Na of the high-frequency items and a number Nb
of the high-frequency items that are also included in the predicted patient problem; calculate the matching level as a ratio Nb/Na; determine a type of the alert based on the actual patient problem in a case where the matching level is lower than a predetermined first threshold Th1, including: (i) determining whether a past matching level Cb between the actual patient problem and a past actual patient problem in a preceding first period Ta is equal to or greater than a predetermined third threshold Th3 to classify Case A1 or Case A2. This is a method of managing interactions between people using the computing environment. The mere nominal recitation of a memory, a processor does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping or mathematical concept grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of acquiring and storing specific structured patient information in a computer environment. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements, using the processor; a computing device, apparatus, network, memory, etc… (i.e. processor, a memory, an apparatus…). The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to generating the prediction problems by computing a quantitative matching level and threshold control. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of generating a schedule of monitoring actions based on site prioritization or outputting an indication of the site prioritization. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20250210176A1, Jun. 26, 2025; Areias et al., Artificial Intelligence driven predictive tool for digital platforms
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 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 HIEP VAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday between 8:00AM and 5:00PM 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 at 5712728109. 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.
/HIEP V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686