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 .
Status of Claims
In the response filed November 12, 2025, Applicant amended claims 16, 20, 27, 28, and 34. Claims 25, 26, and 29 were canceled, and claims 1-15 were previously canceled. Claims 16-24, 27, 28, and 30-34 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the claims are integrated into a practical application of “optimizing workflow by considering available resources, allotting benefit values, and using a utility maximization function to recommend a course of action.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As a whole, the input and output devices, and a computer in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art references do not teach or suggest “a programmable computer configured to assess, in an assessment step, the state of the patient's vascular access and/or to provide a prognosis with respect to the patient's vascular access based on the input data using a utility maximization layer and a utility maximization function, wherein the utility maximization layer and the utility maximization function are configured to allot a benefit value to the individual medical resources or devices available for further assessing the vascular access” and “an output device configured for outputting a result of said assessment step, wherein the result comprises a ranked list of medical actions produced by the utility maximization layer” because the prior art reference do not describe using a utility maximization layer or function to analyze patients’ vascular access. The rejection has been withdrawn.
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 16-24, 27, 28, and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 16-24, 27, 28, and 30-34 do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a machine (i.e., system) and process (i.e., a method).
Although claims 16-24, 27, 28, and 30-34 fall under at least one of the four statutory categories, it should be determined whether the claim wholly embraces a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106 I and II).
Claims 16-24, 27, 28, and 30-34 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Part I: Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the Abstract Idea
Under step 2A, Prong One of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). The determination consists of a) identifying the specific limitations in the claim that recite an abstract idea; and b) determining whether the identified limitations fall within at least one of the three subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity).
The identified limitations of independent claim 16 (representative of independent claim 34) recite
an input device configured for receiving or collecting input data comprising images of the patient's vascular access and information relating to individual medical resources or devices available for further assessing the vascular access;
a programmable computer configured to assess, in an assessment step, the state of the patient's vascular access and/or to provide a prognosis with respect to the patient's vascular access based on the input data using a utility maximization layer and a utility maximization function, wherein the utility maximization layer and the utility maximization function are configured to allot a benefit value to the individual medical resources or devices available for further assessing the vascular access; and
an output device configured for outputting a result of said assessment step, wherein the result comprises a ranked list of medical actions produced by the utility maximization layer
The identified limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting input and output devices, and a computer nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps form practically being performed in the mind. For example, the identified limitations encompass a user collecting patient vascular access data (e.g., medical images), to assess and analyze the state of the patient’s vascular access or provide a prognosis. The claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes groupings of abstract ideas. Thus, the claimed invention recites a judicial exception.
Part I: Step 2A, prong two: additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Under step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claims are evaluated to determine if there are additional elements or a combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. As a whole, the input and output devices, and a computer in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 17-24, 27, 28, and 30-33, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea: For instance, dependent claims recite the type of input data (e.g., diagnosis data) and type of diagnosis data. These claims fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part II. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
Under Part II, the steps of claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not improve another technology or technical field, do not improve the functioning of the computer itself, and are not enough to qualify as "significantly more". For example, the steps require no more than a conventional computer to perform generic computer functions. As stated above in Prong Two, the input and output devices, and a computer in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, based on the two-part Mayo analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. Claims 16-24, 27, 28, and 30-34, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 17-24, 27, 28, and 30-33 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional claims do no recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
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 CHINYERE MPAMUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8853. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/CHINYERE MPAMUGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685