DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
In the response filed on August 23, 2026, the Applicant added claims 27-38 and cancelled claims 1, 6-15, and 20. Claims 2-5, 16-19, and 21-26 were previously cancelled. Claims 27-38 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
v With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. §112 (b), Applicant has appropriately amended the claims (cancelled them). The claims have been amended such that they no longer recite that which was identified as being indefinite. These rejections of claims 1, 9, and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. §112 (b) have been withdrawn.
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to claims 27-38 and in relation to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant specifically argues that
1) “Applicant has drafted the new independent claim to include… these additions more clearly define the invention's technical architecture and its role in improving computer functionality for processing heterogeneous data, rather than merely automating human decision-making or commercial activities
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s first argument.
The Examiner is unpersuaded that storing the received information with null values when there is no value for a respective identifier, generating summary information, generating a summary vector, and generating/storing a weighted summary vector improves computer functionality. It is unclear how computer functionality could be said to be improved by implementing this process.
Applicant specifically argues that
Applicant has replaced the claims with newly added independent Claim 27, which does not contain any commercial or advertising limitations. The claims are now purely directed to a specific technical method of generating a vector representation of medical information within a computing environment.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s second argument.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.”. The “directed to” inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter. Here, the specification provides evidence that the focus of the claims is not on a specific improvement in computer technology, but rather a process for analyzing received medical information for the purpose of determining a product to advertise to a user based on the analyzed medical information (e.g., based on a weighted summary vector derived from medical information). When considered as a whole, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, the claims recite a process for generating a weighted summary vector derived from medical information for the purpose of determining a product to advertise to a user, which falls within the enumerated “Certain methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Examiner notes that the claims also recite subject matter falling within the “mental processes”, as well as the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (see the analysis below).
Applicant specifically argues that
Claim 27 is directed to a specific technical solution for handling heterogeneous, asynchronously received data. Specifically, Claim 27 recites structural steps to harmonize unstructured data, such as "storing a NULL value in the memory in place of a value for a respective identifier of the plurality of identifiers when there is no value for said respective identifier", "numerically distributing the summary information for the identifier in a space of two or more dimensions including a test item identifier axis and a time axis", and "generating the summary vector based on a mean value of the distributed numerical values". These steps are neither a mental process nor a method of organizing human activity. They constitute a specific data-structuring operation that improves how a computer processes and stores heterogeneous data streams. Thus, the claim provides a specific technological improvement and is patent-eligible under Step 2A
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s third argument.
Applicant’s specification does not suggest or infer that conventional product recommendation systems had a problem with handling heterogeneous, asynchronously received data, or that Applicant’s invention is concerned with addressing such a problem. Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) “The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.” See also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (using a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and automatically issue instructions is a form of “electronic recordkeeping” and using a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and automatically issue instructions does not improve the functioning of the computer itself.
Furthermore, the claims lack additional elements that provide an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. “Without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014 - ‘If a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.”) Applicant has not explained how the identified additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The relevant question is whether the claim includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Furthermore, Examiner is not persuaded a human could not store data (e.g., using pen and paper) in the manner claimed, distribute the information, or generate the summary vector. The requirement to use “a memory” or “computing device” amount to a requirement to apply the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer.
Applicant specifically argues that
Claim 27 introduces a highly unconventional, ordered combination of steps: forcing structural uniformity via NULL value assignment, distributing data across specific axes, "setting a weighting factor for a test item... based on whether a matching ratio... exceeds a predetermined threshold", and "applying the weighting factor to the summary vector by a dot product... to generate a weighted summary vector" for storage. This specific machine pipeline is not a generic computer implementation but a specific engineering solution. Therefore, the claims satisfy Step 2B. Withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s third argument.
Novelty or obviousness of the claimed process is not consequential to the eligibility analysis here. Furthermore, Applicant has not identified a problem to which the process is a “specific engineering solution”. Examiner does not understand the claims to be directed to a solution to any such problem.
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.
v Claim(s) 27-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 27-36/are drawn to methods (i.e., a process), claim 38 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim 37 is drawn to an apparatus (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 27-38 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 27 (representative of independent claim(s) 37 and 38) recites/describes the following steps;
receiving, from a plurality of terminals, medical information associated with a plurality of identifiers, the medical information including, for a plurality of test items, respective values;
storing the medical information…in association with the plurality of identifiers, and storing a NULL value…in place of a value for a respective identifier of the plurality of identifiers when there is no value for said respective identifier;
generating summary information for each of the plurality of identifiers from the medical information;
generating, using a pre-trained model…a summary vector for each of the plurality of identifiers by numerically distributing the summary information for the identifier in a space of two or more dimensions including a test item identifier axis and a time axis and generating the summary vector based on a mean value of the distributed numerical values;
setting a weighting factor for a test item of the plurality of test items based on whether a matching ratio between a value of the test item included in a certain one of the medical information and a value of the test item included in the rest of the medical information exceeds a predetermined threshold, and applying the weighting factor to the summary vector by a dot product of the weighting factor with the summary vector to generate a weighted summary vector;
storing the weighted summary vector…as a vector representation of the medical information
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” . The “directed to” inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter. Here, the specification provides evidence that the focus of the claims is not on a specific improvement in computer technology, but rather a process for analyzing received medical information for the purpose of determining a product to advertise to a user based on the analyzed medical information (e.g., based on a weighted summary vector derived from medical information). When considered as a whole, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, the claims recite a process for generating a weighted summary vector derived from received medical information for the purpose of determining a product to advertise to a user. As such, the claimed process for analyzing the received medical information to generate/store the weighted summary vector falls within the enumerated “Certain methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. This process amounts to a commercial or legal interactions (specifically, an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior).
Additionally and/or alternatively, the above-recited steps of receiving medical information including one or more attributes from one or more terminals, wherein the one or more terminals include a medical device terminal, a medical device user terminal, and a patient terminal, and the medical device terminal, the medical device user terminal, and the patient terminal are configured to process different input information receiving, from a plurality of terminals, medical information associated with a plurality of identifiers, the medical information including, for a plurality of test items, respective values; storing the medical information…in association with the plurality of identifiers, and storing a NULL value in place of a value for a respective identifier of the plurality of identifiers when there is no value for said respective identifier; generating summary information for each of the plurality of identifiers from the medical information; generating, using a pre-trained model a summary vector for each of the plurality of identifiers by numerically distributing the summary information for the identifier in a space of two or more dimensions including a test item identifier axis and a time axis and generating the summary vector based on a mean value of the distributed numerical values; setting a weighting factor for a test item of the plurality of test items based on whether a matching ratio between a value of the test item included in a certain one of the medical information and a value of the test item included in the rest of the medical information exceeds a predetermined threshold, and applying the weighting factor to the summary vector by a dot product of the weighting factor with the summary vector to generate a weighted summary vector; and storing the weighted summary vector as a vector representation of the medical information, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) performing each of these steps (e.g., because they each encompass one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Finally, the steps of generating the summary vector, setting the weighting factor, and applying the weighting factor also each amount to mathematical calculations, and therefore fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 27 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 37 and 38 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim. The same reasoning is similarly applicable to the limitations in the remaining dependent claims, and their respective limitations are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of
“performed by a computing device comprising one or more processors and a memory…in the memory…in the memory…in the memory” (independent claims 27, 38, and 38)
“a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a program that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to” (independent claim 38)
“an apparatus…comprising one or more processors and a memory storing a instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to” (independent claim 37)
“a pre-trained model including an encoder having an artificial neural network” (independent claims 27, 37, and 38)
“…in the memory…” (dependent claim 36)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions “performed by a computing device comprising one or more processors and a memory…in the memory…in the memory…in the memory” (independent claims 27, 38, and 38) or by “a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a program that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to” (independent claim 38) or by “an apparatus…comprising one or more processors and a memory storing a instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to” (independent claim 37) and/or the recitation of “…in the memory…” (dependent claim 36) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s own disclosure explains that these elements may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., paragraph [0044] of the published disclosure which states “the embodiment described herein may have aspects of entirely hardware, partly hardware and partly software, or entirely software. The term "unit", "module", "device", "server'' or "system" used herein refers to computer related entity such as hardware, software or a combination thereof. For example, the unit, module, device, server or system may refer to hardware that makes up a platform in part or in whole and/or software such as an application for operating the hardware”, and paragraph [0087] of the published disclosure which states “The embodiments of the present disclosure may include a program for running the methods described herein on a computer and a computer-readable recording medium including the program. The computer-readable recording medium may include program instructions, local data files, local data structures, and the like, alone or in a combination thereof. The medium…may be known to and used by a person having ordinary skill in the field of computer software. Examples of the program instructions may include machine language code made by a compiler and a high-level language code executable by a computer using an interpreter or the like”). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of “a pre-trained model including an encoder having an artificial neural network” (independent claims 27, 37, and 38) provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples and corresponding analysis. MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. The encoder having an artificial neural network is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the encoder having an artificial neural network functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of generating the summary vector with distribution of numerical values, and do not include any details about how the generating is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples and corresponding analysis.
The recitation of “a pre-trained model including an encoder having an artificial neural network” (independent claims 27, 37, and 38) also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “by an encoder having an artificial neural network” limits the identified judicial exceptions to calculating the numerical vector “by an encoder having an artificial neural network”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (artificial neural networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h) and the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples and corresponding analysis. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The recited element(s) of “storing…in the memory…” (independent claims 27, 37, and 38), even if treated as an “additional” element for the purposes of this analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere post-solution activity, such as data output, in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional element(s) do are deemed “extra-solution” because such data output steps have long been held to be insignificant post-solution activity. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h) and (g)).
The recited element(s) of “receiving, from a plurality of terminals, medical information associated with a plurality of identifiers, the medical information including, for a plurality of test items, respective values” (independent claims 27, 37, and 38) and “storing the medical information in the memory in association with the plurality of identifiers, and storing a NULL value in the memory in place of a value for a respective identifier of the plurality of identifiers when there is no value for said respective identifier” (independent claims 27, 37, and 38), even if treated as an “additional” element for the purposes of this analysis (which the Examiner maintains they are not), would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional element(s) do are deemed “extra-solution” because all implementations of the abstract idea require such data to be gathered/received/stored, and because such data gathering/storing steps have long been held to be insignificant pre-solution activity. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h) and (g)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. For example, Applicant’s published disclosure suggests that it is advantageous for advertisers/businesses to implement the claimed process for generating a weighted summary vector because these weighted summary vectors can be used to identify a product to advertise to a user in a manner that increases the level of personalization/customization of the advertisement provided to a user, can ensure the advertisement is considerate of the user’s needs regardless of the level of knowledge regarding their advertisement consumption propensity, and can increase the likelihood of the user engaging with the ad or purchasing an advertised product (see, for example, paragraphs [0002]-[0005] & [0033]-[0037] of Applicant’s published disclosure). These are non-technical subjective business advantages/improvements.
Dependent claims 28-35 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims28-35 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). For example, claim 28 recites “wherein the plurality of terminals includes a medical device terminal, a medical device user terminal, and a patient terminal that are configured to process different input information.”. This is an abstract limitation which further sets forth the abstract idea encompassed by claim 28 (e.g., further describes what the received data is associated with). This limitation is not an “additional element”, and therefore it is not subject to further analysis under Step 2A- Prong Two or Step 2B. The same logic applies to each of the other dependent claims, whose limitations are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity and clarity.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions “performed by a computing device comprising one or more processors and a memory…in the memory…in the memory…in the memory” (independent claims 27, 38, and 38) or by “a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a program that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to” (independent claim 38) or by “an apparatus…comprising one or more processors and a memory storing a instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to” (independent claim 37) and/or the recitation of “…in the memory…” (dependent claim 36) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recitation of “a pre-trained model including an encoder having an artificial neural network” (independent claims 27, 37, and 38) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recitation of “a pre-trained model including an encoder having an artificial neural network” (independent claims 27, 37, and 38) also serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited element(s) of “storing…in the memory…” (independent claims 27, 37, and 38) and “receiving, from a plurality of terminals, medical information associated with a plurality of identifiers, the medical information including, for a plurality of test items, respective values” (independent claims 27, 37, and 38) and “storing the medical information in the memory in association with the plurality of identifiers, and storing a NULL value in the memory in place of a value for a respective identifier of the plurality of identifiers when there is no value for said respective identifier” (independent claims 27, 37, and 38), even if treated as an “additional” element for the purposes of this analysis (which the Examiner maintains they are not), would would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional element(s), taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of marketing/advertising and/or medical product recommendation. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more”. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This conclusion is based on a factual determination. The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network. Furthermore, Examiner takes Official Notice that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional at the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the lack of technical detail/description in Applicant’s own specification provides implicit evidence that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Dependent claims 28-35 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 28-35 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Indication of Novel and Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Independent claims 27, 37, and 38 recite novel and non-obvious subject matter. Each of the dependent claims recite novel and non-obvious subject matter by virtue of their dependency on claim 27.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of novel and non-obvious subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Rose et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2017/0287044, October 5, 2017 - hereinafter "Rose”); Shrivastava et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2021/0365965, November 25, 2021 - hereinafter "Shrivastava”); Serbinis et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2024/0028654 January 25, 2024 - hereinafter "Serbinis”); Seo (U.S. PG Pub No. 2021/0183483 June 17, 2021 - hereinafter "Seo”); Rao et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2022/0335489 October 20, 2022 - hereinafter "Rao”); Zhang (U.S. PG Pub No. 2022/0223245 July 14, 2022 - hereinafter "Zhang”); and Onoro Rubio (U.S. PG Pub No. 2019/0205964 July 4, 2019 - hereinafter "Onoro Rubio”).
Rose discloses receiving medical information including one or more attributes from one or more terminals; generating summary information extracted from the medical information on the basis of the one or more attributes; generating a summary vector corresponding to the summary information using a pre- trained model; calculating a degree of matching between the summary vector and one or more candidate products by calculating dot product between the summary vector and product vectors; and determining a product-to-be-advertised to be displayed on a terminal-to-advertise, from among the candidate products, on the basis of the degree of matching.
Shrivastava discloses a recommender system using captured medical information and generating summary information as a numerical vector and further discloses wherein the summary information is a numerical vector calculated by an encoder having an artificial neural network.
Serbinis discloses receiving medical information including one or more attributes from one or more terminals; generating summary information extracted from the medical information on the basis of the one or more attributes; generating a summary vector corresponding to the summary information using a pre- trained model; calculating a degree of matching between the summary vector and one or more candidate products by calculating cosine similarity between the summary vector and product vectors; and determining a product-to-be-advertised to be displayed on a terminal-to-advertise, from among the candidate products, on the basis of the degree of matching.
Seo discloses receiving medical information including one or more attributes from one or more terminals; generating summary information extracted from the medical information on the basis of the one or more attributes; generating summary vectors corresponding to the summary information using a pre-trained model; calculating a degree of matching between the summary vectors and one or more candidate products by calculating cosine similarity between the summary vectors and product vectors; and determining a product-to-be-advertised to be displayed on a terminal-to-advertise, from among the candidate products, on the basis of the degree of matching.
Rao discloses a recommender system for recommending products to users based on user and product vectors/embeddings, and calculating degrees of matching between these vectors/embeddings using a preset function. Rao further discloses wherein the preset function includes an identity function, a step function, a Rectified Linear Unit function (ReLU), a sigmoid function, a K-means clustering algorithm, and/or a Support Vector Machine (SVM).
Zhang discloses receiving medical information including one or more attributes from one or more terminals; generating summary information extracted from the medical information on the basis of the one or more attributes; generating summary vectors corresponding to the summary information using a pre-trained model; calculating a degree of matching between the summary vectors and one or more candidate drugs by calculating cosine similarity between the summary vectors and product vectors; and determining a drug to be recommended to the user from among candidate druges, on the basis of the degree of matching.
Onoro Rubio discloses receiving medical information including one or more attributes from one or more terminals; generating summary information extracted from the medical information on the basis of the one or more attributes; generating summary vectors corresponding to the summary information using a pre-trained model; calculating a degree of matching between the summary vectors and one or more candidate products by calculating cosine similarity between the summary vectors and product vectors; and determining a product-to-be-advertised to be displayed on a terminal-to-advertise, from among the candidate products, on the basis of the degree of matching.
With respect to Independent claims 27, 37, and 38 (as well as dependent claims 28-36 by virtue of their dependency upon claim 27), although the closest prior art discloses using a generation time of each medical information as a factor in determining products/treatments to recommend for a user (and sometimes weighting certain information based on this generation time), and although the prior art discloses wherein calculating a degree of matching between a weighted summary vector and one or more candidate product vectors, the closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest “setting a weighting factor for a test item of the plurality of test items based on whether a matching ratio between a value of the test item included in a certain one of the medical information and a value of the test item included in the rest of the medical information exceeds a predetermined threshold, and applying the weighting factor to the summary vector by a dot product of the weighting factor with the summary vector to generate a weighted summary vector”. Dot producting the weighting factor with the summary vector is distinct from dot producting a weighted summary vector with a candidate product vector, or dot producting a summary vector with a weighted candidate product vector, as the claim language explicitly requires dot producting the weighting factor with the summary vector to apply the weighting factor to the summary vector. The closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest this feature in combination with each of the other limitations
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DETWEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-4704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at telephone number (571)-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES M DETWEILER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights