CTFR 18/723,948 CTFR 95212 DETAILED ACTION 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. Response to Arguments Regarding the arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the claims do not recite any abstract idea as the claims require action by a processor that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Examiner asserts that, in regards to the amended claims, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity as noted in the updated rejection below. Applicant further argues that the claim as a whole integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by arranging the recommendation list on the user interface according to the rearranged rankings, resulting in an improved user interface. Examiner asserts that the use of the user interface recites generic computer implementation of the abstract idea, where the arrangement of the menu based on the rankings does not show an improvement to user interface technologies. Example 37 recites a specific modification for the arrangement of the icons to put them in a specific location on the screen near the start icon. In contrast, the instant application merely recites arranging the list of rehabilitation menus as claimed; there is no indication of specific interface elements being modified dynamically, and therefore there is no indication of a technology improvement. Regarding the arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 USC 102, Examiner agrees and therefore this rejection is withdrawn. 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 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more . It is appropriate for the Examiner to determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test as recited in the following Steps: 1, 2A, and 2B, see MPEP 2106(III.). Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 1: First, the Examiner is to establish whether the claim falls within any statutory category including a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, see MPEP 2106.03(II.) and MPEP 2106.03(I) . Claims 1-7 are related to a system, and claim 9 is also related to a method (i.e., a process). Claim 10 is related to a “non-transitory” processor readable media storing instructions. Accordingly, these claims are all within at least one of the four statutory categories. Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong One: Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test demonstrates whether a clam is directed to a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(I.) . Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, where Prong One establishes the judicial exception. Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, 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, see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(1.) and 2106.04(a)(2) . Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea as underlined in the following limitations. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites: A rehabilitation menu determination assistance apparatus comprising: a communication interface configured to exchange data with a user terminal over a network; and at least one processor coupled to at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the rehabilitation menu determination assistance apparatus to: receive, via the communication interface, past information including individual information and rehabilitation menus of past patients and input individual information of a target patient, and store the past information and the input individual information in the at least one non-transitory memory as structured records; acquire reference patients having the individual information from the past information; calculate a similarity score indicating similarity of individual information between an input target patient and the reference patients; rank the reference patients in a descending order of the similarity score; rearrange ranks of the reference patients so that the reference patients including more rehabilitation menus commonly performed for a plurality of the reference patients among rehabilitation menus operated on the reference patients are ranked higher, including computing a frequency of use of each rehabilitation menu among the ranked reference patients and assigning , according to the frequency of use of each rehabilitation menu for each ranked reference patient, a commonality rank for each ranked reference patient that contributes to the rearrangement; and generate and transmit, to the user terminal, a recommended list of rehabilitation menus for the input target patient together with the commonality rank used for the rearrangement to cause a user interface screen of the user terminal to arrange the recommended list on the user interface screen in accordance with the rearranged rankings. The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity” , more specifically managing interactions between people as the following abstract limitations recite generating a recommended list of rehabilitation menus for the input target patient: “calculating” a similarity score indicating similarity of individual information between an input target patient and the reference patients, which is an abstract limitation of analysis of the individual information for the input target patient and reference patient to make a determination of a similarity score between the target and reference, “rank” the reference patients in a descending order of the similarity score, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis of the reference patients based on the previously determined abstract similarity score, “rearrange” ranks of the reference patients so that the reference patients including more rehabilitation menus commonly performed for a plurality of the reference patients among rehabilitation menus operated on the reference patients are ranked higher, which are abstract limitations related to analysis of the data related to rehabilitation to make a determination of the ranking of the reference patients, and where the rehabilitation menus are interpreted as an abstract representation of rehabilitation information to be presented to a user, “computing” a frequency of use of each rehabilitation menu among the ranked reference patients, which is an abstract limitation of analysis of the use of the abstract rehabilitation menus, which is an abstract limitation of analysis of the amount of use for the menus of the ranked reference patients, “assigning”, according to the frequency of use of each rehabilitation menu for each ranked reference patient, a commonality rank for each ranked reference patient that contributes to the rearrangement, which is an abstract limitation of the analysis of the frequency of use to generate a commonality rank for each patient, “generate” a recommended list of rehabilitation menus for the input target patient together with the commonality rank used for the rearrangement, which recites further abstract limitations of generating a recommended list of rehab menus for a target patient, “arrange” the recommended list in accordance with the rearranged rankings, which is an abstract limitation of changing the ranking of the listed recommendations The claim limitations as a whole recite steps for generating a recommended list of rehabilitation menus for the input target patient, which recites social activity steps for presenting the rehabilitation menus for the management of the rehabilitation of the target patient and therefore recite managing interactions between people and is a certain method of organizing human activity. The abstract idea recited in claims 9 and 10 are similar to that of claim 1. Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., processor) and will be discussed in further detail below. Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea. Furthermore, dependent claims for claim 1 further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below: Claim 2 recites further abstract limitations of “maximizing” a recovery amount among the reference patients and then “rearranging” the reference patients to rank the recommendations higher, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 4 recites further abstract limitations of “calculating” the similarity score by using an item as a calculation target for the similarity score, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 5 recites further abstract limitations of “calculating” a similarity of a history of the ability values, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 6 recites further abstract limitations of “calculating” a similarity of a history of the goals, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 7 recites maximizing rehabilitation by considering the improvement degree of an ability value of the reference patients, further describing the abstract idea. Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: 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. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrates 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 exceptions into a “practical application,” see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(2.) and 2106.04(d)(I.) . 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”): A rehabilitation menu determination assistance apparatus comprising: a communication interface configured to exchange data with a user terminal over a network; and at least one processor coupled to at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the rehabilitation menu determination assistance apparatus to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) : receive, via the communication interface, past information including individual information and rehabilitation menus of past patients and input individual information of a target patient, and store the past information and the input individual information in the at least one non-transitory memory as structured records; acquire reference patients having the individual information from the past information (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g), Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.) ; calculate a similarity score indicating similarity of individual information between an input target patient and the reference patients; rank the reference patients in a descending order of the similarity score; rearrange ranks of the reference patients so that the reference patients including more rehabilitation menus commonly performed for a plurality of the reference patients among rehabilitation menus operated on the reference patients are ranked higher, including computing a frequency of use of each rehabilitation menu among the ranked reference patients and assigning , according to the frequency of use of each rehabilitation menu for each ranked reference patient, a commonality rank for each ranked reference patient that contributes to the rearrangement; and generate and transmit, to the user terminal (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) , a recommended list of rehabilitation menus for the input target patient together with the commonality rank used for the rearrangement to cause a user interface screen of the user terminal to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) arrange the recommended list on the user interface screen in accordance with the rearranged rankings. 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 limitations of: the overall rehabilitation menu determination assistance apparatus comprising a communication interface configured to exchange data with a user terminal over a network and at least one processor coupled to at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the rehabilitation menu determination assistance apparatus to perform steps, transmission of data to the user terminal, and causing a user interface screen of the user terminal to perform steps, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0051] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of generic processors and memory for the generic apparatus for processing related to the steps. [0049, 0050, 0053] recites the use of the communication interface to transmit data in a generic manner to the user terminal via a network. [0064] recites the use of a generic user interface on the user terminal to display the information. Claim 10 recites the use of a generic non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions as further described in [0053]. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Regarding the additional limitations of: receive, via the communication interface, past information including individual information and rehabilitation menus of past patients and input individual information of a target patient, and store the past information and the input individual information in the at least one non-transitory memory as structured records, and acquire reference patients having the individual information from the past information, these are merely pre-solution activities. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). [0032, 0055] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the action of acquiring the reference patients from the patient information acquisition unit. [0044, 0050] recites the use of the network to retrieve the past information from the past information storage unit. [0044, 0050, 0065] recites the storing of the individual information in the memory. The use of the storage unit and communication network are for performing a data gathering action for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activity. Claims 9 and 10 recite similar additional elements and are analyzed in a similar manner as claim 1. 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 determine rehabilitation menus, 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 MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b) . The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below: Claim 3 recites further additional elements recites setting a program upper limit set by a user for the amount of types of menus that can be seen by a user, which recites the mere display of information via generic user interface elements, and these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components Claims 5-7 recites further detail of the individual information of the target patient and the past information that is gathered by the system, however this recites insignificant pre-solution activity. Thus, taken alone and in ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, the independent claims 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, see MPEP 2106.05(II.) . Further, it may need to be established, when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, that the additional elements recite well understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d) . Regarding the additional limitations of claim 1: the overall rehabilitation menu determination assistance apparatus comprising a communication interface configured to exchange data with a user terminal over a network and at least one processor coupled to at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the rehabilitation menu determination assistance apparatus to perform steps, transmission of data to the user terminal, and causing a user interface screen of the user terminal to perform steps, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) ”). [0051] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of generic processors and memory for the generic apparatus for processing related to the steps. [0049, 0050, 0053] recites the use of the communication interface to transmit data in a generic manner to the user terminal via a network. [0064] recites the use of a generic user interface on the user terminal to display the information. Claim 10 recites the use of a generic non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions as further described in [0053]. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The transmission of data to the user terminal recites using a network to send information, reciting well understood, routine, and conventional activity. Regarding the additional limitations of: receive, via the communication interface, past information including individual information and rehabilitation menus of past patients and input individual information of a target patient, and store the past information and the input individual information in the at least one non-transitory memory as structured records, and acquire reference patients having the individual information from the past information, these are merely pre-solution activities. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “ storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and “buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) ”). [0032, 0055] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the action of acquiring the reference patients from the patient information acquisition unit. [0044, 0050] recites the use of the network to retrieve the past information from the past information storage unit. [0044, 0050, 0065] recites the storing of the individual information in the memory. The use of the storage unit and communication network are for performing a data gathering action for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activity and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The use of the patient information acquisition unit recites a retrieval of information from a storage device, and thus recites well understood, routine, and conventional activity. Additionally, the use of the network for transmitting the information recites well understood, routine, and conventional activity. Claims 9 and 10 recite similar additional elements and are analyzed in a similar manner as claim 1. The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and therefore claims 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The following previously recited references have been considered as relevant, however have not been used in the above rejections and do not teach the invention individually nor in combination: US 20210375437 A1 to Vasudevan et al. teaches of a system for decision care assistance for interventions using a user interface where care decision intervention priority scores are calculated to rank patients. US-20220108779-A1 to Fukagawa et al. teaches of management of patients in rehabilitation using a generated user interface. WO-2019075185-A1 to Sundaram et al. teaches of management of patients during rehabilitation using web services. NPL “On the use of natural user interfaces in physical rehabilitation: A web-based application for patients with hip prosthesis” to Rybarczyk et al. teaches of an interface for tracking the progress of patients in rehabilitation. These references do not teach aspects of the current invention including but not limited to: “computing a frequency of use of each rehabilitation menu among the ranked reference patients and assigning, according to the frequency of use of each rehabilitation menu for each ranked reference patient, a commonality rank for each ranked reference patient that contributes to the rearrangement; and generate and transmit, to the user terminal, a recommended list of rehabilitation menus for the input target patient together with the commonality rank used for the rearrangement” Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS whose telephone number is (571)272-6719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM 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 (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. /CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS/ Examiner Art Unit 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/723,948 Page 2 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/723,948 Page 3 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/723,948 Page 4 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/723,948 Page 5 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/723,948 Page 6 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/723,948 Page 7 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/723,948 Page 8 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/723,948 Page 9 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/723,948 Page 10 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/723,948 Page 11 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/723,948 Page 12 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/723,948 Page 13 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/723,948 Page 14 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/723,948 Page 15 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/723,948 Page 16 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/723,948 Page 17 Art Unit: 3686 Application/Control Number: 18/723,948 Page 18 Art Unit: 3686
Prosecution Insights