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 applicant arguments filled on 08/21/2026 for application 18/732347.
Claims 1-37 have been canceled.
Claim 38, 39, 49, 51, 52, 54, and 57 have been amended.
Claims 38-57 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 38, 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; and modifying 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 first subset of the time series data sets with the one or more modified outlier data points, 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 is incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data, and the storing is an extra insignificant extra solution activity. 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 § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 38-57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faghih et al. (US 2025/0025660 A1) in view of Shade et al. (US 2024/0055122 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 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. 110 wherein “ point is generated when the derivative exceeds the threshold a certain number of times. This number limit is set to avoid extraneous derivative spikes not belonging to a breath that can be observed in the plot. The cycle time is shown as a continuous value of the change in cycle time corresponding to the most recent breath. A point is generated where the cycle time increases above the threshold. The resulting combined binary process contains the events that occurred in both the respiration amplitude and derivative features or only the cycle time feature”. See also Para. 91 wherein a derivative value is compared to threshold values);
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. 91-92 wherein the derivatives, i.e. rate of change, of the data is compared to threshold values);
Faghih does not explicitly teach however Shade teaches:
responsive to the identifying of the one or more outlier data points, modifying the one or more outlier data points in accordance with the threshold value (Para. 107 wherein identifying and removing outliers that exceed a standard deviation threshold is taught) ;
Faghih further teaches:
based on the modifying, storing the first subset of the time-series data sets with the one or more modified outlier data points in accordance with the threshold value in a hardware storage device (Para. 178).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filling to combine outlier removal as seen in Shade with the outlier measurements using the rate of change measurements, i.e. derivates, as seen in Faghih in order to reduce errors in measurements. The combination would identify outliers using derivates as seen in Faghih and remove the data points that are outliers as taught in Shade, and provide the resulting processed time series data for subsequent analysis as taught in Shade (Para. 144.)
As per claim 39, Faghih in view of Shade teach the system of claim 38. Faghih does not explicitly teach however Shade teaches, wherein the operations further comprise providing the first subset of the time-series data sets with the one or more modified outlier data points to a computerized health analysis platform (Para. 107 and 117). The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 38.
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 sts 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the 101 rejection. The Applicant argues that the claimed subject matter does not involve a so-called patent ineligible abstract idea and thus does not invoke the abstract exception. Even if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The steps of “responsive to the identifying of the one or more outlier data points…modifying the one or more outlier data points in accordance with the threshold values…storing the first subset of the time series data sets…”This combination of elements integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because these elements impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim features is improving the claimed system of using the claimed functionality to obtain results and then using those results to improve the system (by modifying the identified outlier data points).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to an abstract idea since the claims are directed to analyzing human data as seen in the rejection above. The claims do not integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Identifying outliers, modifying or removing those outliers, and providing the results are data processing operations constituting the abstract idea. Even if the results might produce a more refined data or cleaner data, that benefit does not by itself demonstrate improved functioning of the computer or another technology. The asserted improvement concerns the information being processed rather than a claimed improvement in the in operation of the system. Considered as a whole, the claim provides the results of the analysis without reciting a further technological application that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
The Applicant argues the art rejection. The Applicant states that the provisional application does not recite Para. 133 and 157 of Fanghih. The Examiner agrees that the exact wording is not taught in the provisional, however the concept is taught in the provisional application. For Exampling the provisional teaches “identifying one or more outlier data points among the first subset of the time series data ….is greater than the threshold value” as seen in paragraph 17 and figure 7 wherein respiration derivative is compared to threshold values. See also paragraph 45 wherein the derivative of the signal is compared to a threshold value in order to remove extraneous derivative peaks from noise.
The Applicant argues the reference fails to teach determining a fist subset of the time series data sets based on the one or more health related attributes of the plurality of entities. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 7 teaches different subset of time series data based on patient attributes. See also Figures 18A and B.
Other Applicant arguments simply rehash issues already addressed in the action above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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