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.
This action is in response to application 18/732347 filled on 06/03/2024.
Claims 1-37 have been canceled.
Claims 38-57 have been added new and are currently pending for examination.
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 38-57 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:
Claims 38-57 are drawn to a method and system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 68, 51, and 57 recite determining a first subset of the time series data sets based on the one or more one or more health related attributes of the plurality of entities; determining a respective rate of change of the measurements; determining whether the rate of change is greater than a threshold value; identifying one or more outlier data appoints amount the fist subset of the time series data; generating a second data structure representing the one or more outlier data points.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity by identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including a processor (claim 38 and 57), and an electronic device (claim 51), which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims recite the additional element of accessing one or more data structures and storing the second data structure, which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed accessing and storing limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do 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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
Paragraph 31, where “the electronic device 120 can be implemented on one or more computing devices (e.g., each computing device including at least one processor such as a microprocessor or microcontroller). As an example, the electronic device 120 can be a single computing device, such as a single smartphone. As another example, the electronic device 120 can include multiple computing devices that are connected via a network (e.g., the Internet, local area network etc.), and the components of the electronic device 120 can be maintained and operated on some or all of the computing devices. For instance, electronic device 120 can include several computing devices, and the components of the electronic device 120 can be distributed on one or more of these computing devices.”
Paragraph 25, where “Thus, the computer system may reprocess the data multiple times (e.g., based on manual feedback from a user) until a satisfactory result is achieved. These repeated operations can increase the amount of computation resources (e.g., CPU utilization), memory resources, storage resources, etc.) that are consumed during the health assessment process.”
Paragraph 26, where “the data integrity maintenance system 100 accesses data structures (e.g., health-related data such as existing healthcare data or lab test data stored in a data store, such as database module 122 or otherwise accessible to the electronic device 120, for example, through a server) and determine data integrity (e.g., data quality) of the data structures through processing methods according to implementations described in this disclosure”.
The claims recite the additional element of accessing one or more first data structures and storing the second data set, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 39-50 and 52-56 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 38-57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Faghih et al. (US 2025/0025660 A1).
In claim 38 Faghih teaches a system for maintaining data integrity in a computerized health analysis platform, the system comprising:
at least one processor (Para. 11); and
a memory subsystem communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the memory subsystem storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
accessing one or more first data structures comprising:
a plurality of time-series data sets regarding a plurality of entities, wherein each of the time-series data sets represents measurements of one or more physiological parameters of the plurality of entities over time, and one or more health-related attributes of the plurality of entities (Fig. 7 and Para. 18);
determining a first subset of the time-series data sets based on the one or more one or more health-related attributes of the plurality of entities (fig. 7 and Para. 11);
for the first subset of the time-series data sets:
determining a respective rate of change of the measurements of one or more physiological parameters over time, and determining whether the rate of change is greater than a threshold value (Fig. 7 and Para. 88 wherein “ a point is made to process by assigning a value of one if both the respiration amplitude and respiration rate probabilities or the respiration cycle time probabilities are below a specified threshold probability value, or zero otherwise. An Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm is used to decode the valence state in relation to the high valence indicative events. Eventually, the decoded valence state is evaluated given the self-reported valence ratings from subjects.”);
identifying one or more outlier data points among the first subset of the time-series data sets based on the determination of whether the rate of change is greater than the threshold value (Para. 133 wherein “this method is used to reduce the impact of outliers on the clustering of high valence indicative breaths by considering the median value of features for cluster centroids” and Para. 157 wherein “The separation between high and low valence periods can be impacted by the threshold selected. For example, choosing narrower thresholds for identification drastically reduces the number of total valence events in either period, resulting in the magnitude of the event being more informative than the incidence of events.”);
generating a second data structure representing the one or more outlier data points (Para. 125 wherein “To correct the baseline and remove unwanted high and low frequency measurement noise, a Butterworth bandpass filter was implemented with cutoff frequencies of 0.05 Hz and 1 Hz. The filter corrects any polynomial baseline trends to zero and removes unwanted high frequency noise present in the signal. These frequencies are selected such that the components of respiratory activity are preserved but high frequency noise and low frequency oscillations in the baseline of the signal are removed “); and
storing the second data structure in a hardware storage device (Para. 178).
As per claim 39, Faghih teaches the system of claim 38, wherein the operations further comprise providing the second data structure to a computerized health analysis platform (Para. 125).
As per claim 40, Faghih teaches the system of claim 38, wherein the one or more health-related attributes comprise at least one of a disease indication, a medical condition other than the disease indication, a same medication usage, a same medical treatment, or a gender (Para. 79).
As per claim 41, Faghih teaches the system of claim 38, wherein the one or more physiological parameters represent clinical parameters that are continuously collected at regularly spaced intervals (Para. 118).
As per claim 42, Faghih teaches the system of claim 38, wherein the threshold value is determined based on (i) a mean of the measurements of the one or more physiological parameters of the plurality of entities of the first subset over time and (ii) one or more standard deviations from the mean (Para. 88, 105, and 107).
As per claim 43 Faghih teaches the system of claim 42, wherein the threshold value corresponds to a value representing three standard deviations from the mean (Para. 165 wherein outliers are taught).
As per claim 44, Faghih teaches the system of claim 38, wherein identifying the one or more outlier data points comprises comparing rates of changes of consecutive pairs of the measurements of the one or more physiological parameters of the plurality of entities of the first subset over time (Para. 52 and 165).
As per claim 45, Faghih teaches the system of claim 44, wherein the threshold value is determined based on (i) a mean difference of the consecutive pairs and (ii) one or more standard deviations from the mean difference (Para. 52 and 92).
As per claim 46, Faghih teaches the system of claim 38, wherein the operations further comprise outputting the one or more outlier data points for display on a user interface (Fig. 10b and Para. 151).
As per claim 47, Faghih teaches the system of claim 46, wherein the operations further comprise generating a graph representing the first subset of the time-series data for display on the user interface (Fig. 7).
As per claim 48, Faghih teaches the system of claim 46, wherein the operations further comprise modifying the time-series data sets based on a user instruction, and wherein modifying the time-series data sets comprises correcting or deleting one or more of the measurements (Para. 125).
As per claim 49, Faghih teaches the system of claim 48, wherein modifying the first subset of the time-series data improves data integrity by (i) deleting or isolating the one or more outlier data points or (ii) specifying the one or more outlier data points as unusable data or data that needs correction (Para. 125 wherein removing unwanted high and low frequency measurement is taught).
As per claim 50, Faghih teaches the system of claim 38, wherein accessing the one or more first data structures comprises accessing data collected from one or more wearable sensors (Para. 119).
Claims 51-57 recite substantially similar limitations as seen above and hence are rejected for similar rationale as noted above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shay et al. (US 2017/0119318 A1) teaches “the technology can continuously update parameters (e.g., delay values for delaying signals, delay line settings, weighting parameters, outlier filtering parameters, etc.) affecting signal quality before, during, and/or after sessions of RF sensor device activity (e.g., transmission of incident signals towards an artery of the user, receipt of reflected signals, etc.)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAROUN P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
MAROUN P. KANAAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/MAROUN P KANAAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights