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
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 12/29/25.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 3, 6, 12 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made final.
Foreign Priority/Continuity
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application KR10-2021-0181989 filed in Korea on 12/17/21, and application KR10-2022-0134355 filed in Korea on 10/18/22. A certified foreign copy of the KR10-2022-0134355 application was received on 9/19/24, and a certified foreign copy of the KR10-2021-0181989 application was received on 11/21/25. Status of this application as a continuation of PCT/KR2022/020626, filed on 12/16/22, is acknowledged. Accordingly, the instant application has been given a priority date of 12/17/21.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “apparatus for providing content”, “storage module configured to” and “control module configured to” in claim 10 and “control module configured to” in Claims 11 and 12. Per paras. [0050]-[0053] the apparatus is understood to be a “content providing device” which may be a server, computer, or portable terminal, e.g., a laptop, desktop, PC, tablet, etc.; per [0090] the storage module and control module are interpreted as hardware/software components of the content providing device. Therefore, sufficient structure is present.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9 are drawn to a method, and Claims 10-11, 13-15 are drawn to an apparatus, both of which are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13-15 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites implementing the steps of:
identifying a permission of a specific account
as a result of the identification, based on the specific account being a patient account, collecting at least one medical information for the patient input from at least one connection account linked to the patient account;
generating status information of the patient by analyzing the at least one medical information;
searching at least one content based on the status information; and
generating and providing training information using the searched at least one content, wherein the at least one connection account includes at least one of a guardian account, a therapist account, a medical personnel account, or a medical institution administrator account, wherein the at least one medical information includes at least one of symptom information, diagnosis information, medical personnel information, therapist information, environmental information, or survey response information for the patient, and wherein the status information represents the status of the patient as a quantitative indicator.
receiving training result information, which is generated as the patient performs training, wherein the training result information includes a degree of training performance for a cognitive domain or a language domain, training ratio, training domain, and accuracy for each training domain by date;
analyzing the training result information, generating analysis information for the patient, and updating the analysis information as the training result information is received and accumulated;
applying a model to the training result information and generating the status information, the training information, and the analysis information; and
providing the analysis information to at least one predetermined individual, wherein the at least one predetermined individual comprises at least one of the patient, at least one medical professional, at least one therapist, at least one guardian, and at least one medical institution, wherein a permission of the patient information is set differently for each of the patient, the at least one medical personnel, the at least one therapist, the at least one guardian, and the at least one medical institution, and wherein the analysis information is generated differently depending on the permission which is set.
These steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Collecting medical information of a patient to generate and to use to generate and provide relevant training material for the patient, receiving training result information, generating analysis information for the patient which is updated as training result information is received, generating status information, training information, and analysis information, and providing the analysis information to at least one predetermined individual with a respective permission, in which the analysis information is generated differently depending on the permission of the individual, are personal behaviors that may be performed by a healthcare provider.
Independent claim 10 recites similar limitations and also recites an abstract idea under the same analysis.
The above claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional
elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
The independent claims additionally recite:
an apparatus as implementing the steps of the abstract idea (Claim 1 and 10)
a login of a specific account into a platform linked to the cloud server, as the means by which a permission of the specific account is identified (Claims 1, 10)
an artificial intelligence-based learning model as implementing the step of searching at least one content based on the status information and providing content for the rehabilitation training and implementing the step of generating the status information, the training information, and the analysis information (Claims 1, 10)
a control module configured to perform an operation to provide content for the cognitive or language rehabilitation training based on the at least one process as implementing the steps of the abstract idea (Claim 10)
a communication module (Claim 10)
a terminal as the entity to which the training information is provided, the patient performs the training, and as implementing the step of receiving training result information (Claim 1, 10)
machine learning analysis of the training result information by an artificial intelligence- based learning model as a means of analyzing data (Claims 1, 10)
transmitting (“providing”) analysis information to at least one preset terminal, wherein the at least one preset terminal comprises at least one of a patient terminal of the patient, a medical personnel terminal for each of at least one medical personnel, a therapist terminal for each of at least one therapist, a guardian terminal for each of at least one guardian, and a terminal provided in each of at least one medical institution (Claims 1, 10)
The broad recitation of general purpose computing elements at a high level of generality only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing components as tools. Regarding the apparatus, this is understood to be a server, computer, portable terminal, laptop, desktop, tablet PC, slate PC functioning in its ordinary capacity to implement the steps of the abstract idea. Regarding using a login via a platform linked to a cloud server, this amounts to using general purpose computing elements to apply the abstract idea, see paras. [0050]-[0053]; the computing elements are described at a high level of generality and are understood to be operating in their ordinary capacities to implement the steps of the abstract idea. No particulars of the cloud server appear to be disclosed, and this element is therefore given its broadest reasonable interpretation as a general purpose server functioning in its ordinary capacity. Regarding recitation of an machine learning and artificial intelligence based learning model, the specification does not appear to disclose any particulars of these elements, other than reiterating the claim language (see e.g., paras. [0012], [0013], [0062], [0100], [0103]), as such, this only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. Regarding the control module, per para. [0100], this is understood to be a general purpose computing element functioning in its ordinary capacity to carry out the steps of the abstract idea. Regarding the communication module, this is understood to be a general purpose computing element functioning its ordinary capacity (see paras. [0091]-[0094]). Regarding the terminal, per para. [0053], the terminal is understood to be a wireless communication device such as a smartphone, PDA, or wearable device. No particulars of the terminal or its display are given, and as such, they are given the broadest reasonable interpretation as general purpose computing elements functioning in their ordinary capacity to apply the abstract idea.
Regarding the limitation “transmitting analysis information to at least one preset terminal, wherein the at least one preset terminal comprises at least one of a patient terminal of the patient, a medical personnel terminal for each of at least one medical personnel, a therapist terminal for each of at least one therapist, a guardian terminal for each of at least one guardian, and a terminal provided in each of at least one medical institution”, Examiner submits that the terminals are all understood to be general purpose computing devices (smartphone, PDA, wearable device per para. [0053]); means of transmission is understood to occur over a variety of known communication means (paras. [0091]-[0093]); hence, this limitation only amounts to providing (e.g., “transmitting”) analysis information electronically to different recipients using general purpose computing devices functioning in their ordinary capacity.
These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
B. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 1 additionally recites:
training result information is stored
Claim 10 additionally recites:
a storage module configured to store various information for at least one patient, an artificial intelligence-based learning model for providing content for the cognitive or language rehabilitation training, and at least one process
This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(g), "[t]he term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim."
In Claim 1, the function of storing training result information is only nominally or tangentially related to the process of collecting medical information of a patient to use to generate and provide relevant training material for the patient, analyze the data and provide the training result analysis information to a particular individual based on a permission, and accordingly constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity.
In Claim 10, the function of storing various information for at least one patient, an artificial intelligence-based learning model for providing content for the cognitive or language rehabilitation training, and at least one process is only nominally or tangentially related to the process of collecting medical information of a patient to use to generate and provide relevant training material for the patient, analyze the data and provide the training result analysis information to a particular individual based on a permission, and accordingly constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity.
These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claims 1 and 10 only recite the aforementioned computing elements as tools for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f).
B. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Likewise, as explained above, the elements of training result information is stored;
and a storage module configured to store various information for at least one patient, an artificial intelligence-based learning model for providing content for the cognitive or language rehabilitation training, and at least one process, only amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
C. Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activities. MPEP 2106.0S(d)
In addition to amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity the elements in Section B above constitute well-understood, routine and conventional activity. The elements of training result information is stored and a storage module configured to store various information for at least one patient, an artificial intelligence-based learning model for providing content for the cognitive or language rehabilitation training, and at least one process only amounts to storing/retrieving data in memory, which has been previously held to be well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the
above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds
nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their
collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Depending Claims
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims. For example, Claims 7, 8, 14 recite limitations which further narrow the scope of the independent claims. Claim 2, 4, 5, 9, 13, 15 further recite limitations that are certain methods of organizing human activity as described in detail below.
Claim 2 recites limitations pertaining to wherein searching the at least one content includes: identifying a type of the content based on tag information of pre-stored contents through a big-data analysis, and searching the at least one content based on the identified type of the content, which is also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior, as a healthcare provider can identify content based on a tag based on prestored contents through a big data analysis and search the at least one content.
Claim 2 additionally recites “based on the cloud server” which as discussed above with respect to the independent claims, amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a general purpose computing element. MPEP 2106.05(f).
The above limitations are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites limitations pertaining to wherein, in the training result information, a degree of training performance, training ratio, training area, and accuracy for each training area for cognitive and language areas are recorded by date, which is also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior, as a healthcare provider could record training information for each area by date. Claim 4 also recites limitations pertaining to wherein, when a user sets a date section, the analysis information is generated using the training result information included in the set date section and displayed as at least one of a graph and a number, which is also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior, as a healthcare provider could use training result information in a set date section and visually render it (e.g., display it) as a graph or number.
Claim 4 also recites at least one terminal and a display of the at least one terminal. Per para. [0053], the terminal is understood to be a wireless communication device such as a smartphone, PDA, or wearable device. No particulars of the terminal or its display are given, and as such, they are given the broadest reasonable interpretation as general purpose computing elements used to apply the abstract idea. MPEP 2106/05(f).
The above limitations are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites limitations pertaining to wherein generating the status information includes: evaluating at least one of a cognitive level or a language level of the patient using the quantitative indicator; determining a training difficulty for the patient according to the evaluation result; selecting the at least one content corresponding to the determined training difficulty among the at least one searched content; and determining a training order based on the selected at least one content, which are also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior, as a healthcare provider could perform cognitive/language evaluations of a patient, determine a training difficulty according to the evaluation, select at least one content corresponding to the determined training difficulty, and determining a training order.
The above limitations are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites wherein the training information is transmitted to a terminal where a login is performed, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as it only amounts to outputting the results after performance of the abstract idea. In addition to amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity, the above limitations also constitute well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the form of transmitting data over a network. These types of activities have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional activity when claimed as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Claim 9 also recites wherein, when generating the above training information, the training information is generated differently depending on a type of terminal on which the login is performed. Recitation of “on a terminal…on which the login is performed” only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of generating different content using a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).
The above limitations are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites limitations pertaining to wherein searching the at least one content, identifying a type of the content based on tag information of pre-stored contents through a big-data analysis, and searching the at least one content based on the identified type of the content, which is also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior, as a healthcare provider can identify content based on a tag based on prestored contents through a big data analysis and search the at least one content.
Claim 11 additionally recites “control module” which as discussed above with respect to the independent claims, amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a general purpose computing element. MPEP 2106.05(f).
The above limitations are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites limitations pertaining to wherein generating the status information includes: evaluating at least one of a cognitive level or a language level of the patient using the quantitative indicator; determining a training difficulty for the patient according to the evaluation result; selecting the at least one content corresponding to the determined training difficulty among the at least one searched content; and determining a training order based on the selected at least one content, which are also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior, as a healthcare provider could perform cognitive/language evaluations of a patient, determine a training difficulty according to the evaluation, select at least one content corresponding to the determined training difficulty, and determining a training order.
Claim 13 additionally recites “control module” which as discussed above with respect to the independent claims, amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a general purpose computing element. MPEP 2106.05(f).
The above limitations are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites wherein the training information is transmitted to a terminal where a login is performed, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as it only amounts to outputting the results after performance of the abstract idea. In addition to amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity, the above limitations also constitute well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the form of transmitting data over a network. These types of activities have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional activity when claimed as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Claim 15 also recites wherein, when generating the above training information, the training information is generated differently depending on a type of terminal on which the login is performed. Recitation of “on a terminal…on which the login is performed” only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of generating different content using a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).
The above limitations are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as they include all of the limitations of claim 1 or claim 10 respectively. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea. Beyond the limitations which recite the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements consistent with those identified above with respect to the independent claims which encompass adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7-11, 13-15 recite additional subject matter which amounts to additional elements consistent with those identified in the analysis of Claim 1 and 10 above. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1 and 10 and integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, recitation of these additional elements only amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7-11, 13-15, when analyzed as a whole, 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.
For the reasons stated, Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13-15 fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments
Please note: When referencing page numbers of Applicant’s response, references are to page numbers as printed.
Foreign Priority
Examiner acknowledges that a certified copy of priority application KR10-2021-0181989 has been received.
Claim Objections
The claim objections to Claims 10 and 11 as discussed at page 3 of non-final action dated 09/29/25 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to these claims.
Specification Objections
The specification objections for typographical error of at para. [0013] is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to para. [0013].
35 USC 101 Rejections
Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding remarks at page 9 in which Applicant remarks, “Independent claim 1 is amended to clarify that the claimed subject matter is directed to interworking operations between hardware elements and to non-mental processes”, Examiner respectfully submits that the amendments only amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as set out above in the 101 analysis section; regarding “non-mental process”, Examiner submits that as the claims were identified as being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, and not mental processes, this is not persuasive.
Regarding features of amended Claim 1 presented at Page 9, Examiner submits that the amendments only amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using computing devices/components. Please reference 101 analysis above in which the limitations have been parsed in detail to show which limitations and elements fall within the scope of the abstract idea and which have been identified as additional elements. Regarding Applicant’s remarks “these features should not be considered as mere certain methods of organizing human activity”, Examiner respectfully submits that, these limitations all fall within the scope of the abstract idea. For example, regarding "receiving, training result information, which is generated as the patient performs training through the terminal, wherein the training result information stores a degree of training performance for a cognitive domain or a language domain, training ratio, training domain, and accuracy for each training domain by date”, the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a health professional receiving training information of an activity performed by a user/patient, in which the training information includes degree of training performance, training ration, training domain, and accuracy for each domain by date. Recitation of receiving the information “from a terminal to which the training information is provided” in the above limitation, this only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a general purpose computer as the means from which the data is received. Regarding limitation analyzing the training result information, generating analysis information for the patient, and updating the analysis information as the training result information is received, the broadest reasonable interpretation is understood to be a health professional performing data analysis/calculations. Regarding inclusion “machine learning by an AI-based learning model”, the claim does not disclose the particulars of the AI-based model or provide an improvement to a machine learning/AI model. The broad recitation of an AI-based model, in this case to generate status information, training information, and analysis information, only amounts to using the machine learning model as a tool to apply data to a model and generate a result (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Thus, none of the amendments cited by Applicant preclude the limitations of Claim 1 or 10 from being directed to an abstract idea. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding remarks at page 10 in which Applicant cites to the limitation “wherein the at least one preset terminal comprises at least one of a patient terminal of the patient, a medical personnel terminal for each of at least one medical personnel, a therapist
terminal for each of at least one therapist, a guardian terminal for each of at least one guardian, and a terminal provided in each of at least one medical institution, wherein a permission of the patient information is set differently for each of the patient, the at least one medical personnel, the at least one therapist, the at least one guardian, and the at least one medical institution, and wherein the analysis information is generated differently depending on the permission which is set” and argues that “Applicant submits that the above features should be considered as additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the claimed subject matter, by developing technology that allows continuous service improvement by reflecting opinions of the patient or guardian, in a non-conventional way”, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s position. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology. See also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). The technological environment of Applicant’s claim is a general-purpose computer (see Spec. Para. [0053]). Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any physical improvement to the functioning of the computer that results from the implementation of Applicant’s claim. There is no indication that the computer is made to run faster, more efficiently, or utilize less power. Applicant’s claimed invention recites the additional element(s) of a terminal, preset terminal, artificial intelligence model, communication and control modules, an apparatus and a platform. While these additional elements implement the steps of the abstract idea, there is no indication that these additional elements operate in a manner different than they normally operate. [Note: for example, using the terminal to receive and output information is not changing the function of the terminal; it is operating as it normally operates to perform the steps of the claimed method.] Operating another device in the manner it normally operates is insufficient to improve that other technology. Because there is no improvement to the function of the computer or another technology, a practical application is not present.
Furthermore, Applicant has not identified, nor can Examiner find evidence of, how any of the additional elements provide evidence of how a technology has been developed that allows “continuous service improvements”. Examiner submits that any purported improvements may be improvements to the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Regarding the limitation “"wherein the at least one preset terminal comprises at least one of a patient terminal of the patient, a medical personnel terminal for each of at least one medical personnel, a therapist terminal for each of at least one therapist, a guardian terminal for each of at least one guardian, and a terminal provided in each of at least one medical institution, wherein a permission of the patient information is set differently for each of the patient, the at least one medical personnel, the at least one therapist, the at least one guardian, and the at least one medical institution, and wherein the analysis information is generated differently depending on the permission which is set”, Examiner submits that each “preset terminal” allows each of the identified roles (patient, medical personnel, therapist, guardian, institution) to receive information electronically. The terminals are understood to be general purpose computing device (see [0053]) functioning in their ordinary capacity. Further, Examiner submits that as currently recited, the permissions have already been set and are not positively recited by the claim. Additionally, Examiner submits that setting permissions based on roles and generating analysis information different based on the permission, are limitations that fall within the scope of the abstract idea. As such, this only amounts to using a computer to electronically control access to information based on a role. This argument is not persuasive.
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive. The rejections of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13-15 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
35 USC 103 Rejections
Applicant’s remarks have been considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn. The closest prior art is understood to be the art of record, however, the art of record fails to teach on all of the amended limitations of the independent claims. A search of publicly available prior art fails to yield a reference or combination of references that would make the claimed combination as presented in amended claims 1 and 10 obvious when considered as a whole.
Conclusion
In the interest of expediting prosecution, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant provides citations to relevant paragraphs of specification for support for amendments in future correspondence.
The following relevant prior art not cited is made of record:
US Publication 20200020454 A1, teaching on a telehealth system which includes a privacy module for sharing patient information based on role-based permissions
US Publication 20150213232 A1, teaching on an interactive and analytical system that provides a dynamic tool to prevent and cure dementia-related diseases via a smartphone, tablet, or PC
US Publication 20160232310 A1, teaching on a diagnosis and care system, which allows a user to provide respective users such as caregivers or care facility administrators with unique roles, capabilities and permission to access their medical information
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3370. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm EST, and generally schedules interviews in the timeframe of 2:00-5:00pm 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, Fonya Long, can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682