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 office action for the 18/784092 application is in response to the communications filed May 13, 2026.
Claims 1-9 were amended January 21, 2026.
Claim 10 was cancelled January 21, 2026.
Claims 11 and 12 were added as new January 21, 2026.
Claims 1-9, 11 and 12 are currently pending and considered below.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a data processing unit configured for”, “a correlation degree analysis unit configured for”, “a first prediction model generation unit configured for”, and “a second prediction model generation unit configured for” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-9, 11 and 12 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.
As per claim 1,
Step 1: The claim recites subject matter within a statutory category as a process.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which Prong 1 determines whether a claim recites a judicial exception. Prong 2 determines if the additional limitations of the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. If the additional elements of the claim fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim contains subject matter that recites an abstract idea, with the steps of a method for prognostic survival stage prediction for Salivary gland cancer for a target patient, comprising: acquiring patients' original information data within a previous preset time period and integrating the patients' original information data so as to obtain a first data set without recurrence time and a second data set with recurrence time, wherein each data set comprises preoperative information, postoperative information and survival status of a corresponding patient; performing analysis based on the preoperative information, the postoperative information and the survival status of each corresponding patient, so as to obtain a correlation degree among the preoperative information, the postoperative information and the survival status; obtain a postoperative survival probability prediction model; and obtain a survival time period prediction model if judging that a survival probability of a target patient is less than or equal to a preset value according to the postoperative survival probability prediction model, the method further comprising providing the preoperative information, postoperative information, and survival status of the target patient to the postoperative survival probability prediction model, which outputs the target patient's postoperative survival probability, andin response to a survival probability of the target patient being less than 50%,providing the preoperative information, postoperative information, and survival status of the target patient to the survival time prediction model, which provides the predicted survival time for the target patient. These steps, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation recite:
certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices including: hedging; insurance; mitigating risk; etc., commercial or legal interactions including: agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; etc., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including: social activities; teaching; following rules or instructions; etc.) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The identified abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon identified above, in the context of this claim, encompasses a certain method of organizing human activity, namely managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This is because each of the limitations of the abstract idea recites a list of rules or instructions that a human person can follow in the course of their personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers at least the recited methods of organizing human activity above, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f), such as:
“computer-implemented”, “based on machine learning”, “training in the first data set based on the correlation degree among the preoperative information, the postoperative information and the survival status, so as to”, “by using a LightGBM-model”, “training in the second data set by using another LightGBM-model, so as to” which corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Page 12 Line 12 of the as-filed specification describes that the hardware that implements the steps of the abstract idea amounts to nothing more than a general-purpose processor, i.e. a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
Accordingly, this claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 2,
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 1 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein after performing analysis to obtain the correlation degree among the preoperative information, the postoperative information and the survival status, the method further comprises: analyzing a degree of influence of a variety of the preoperative information and a variety of the postoperative information on the survival status, in order to obtain influence degree results corresponding to multiple influence factors; and sequencing the influence factors based on the influence degree results.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 3,
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 3 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein analyzing the degree of influence of a variety of the preoperative information and a variety of the postoperative information on the survival status specifically comprises: analyzing the degree of influence of a variety of the preoperative information and a variety of the postoperative information on the survival status by use of a chi-square test, F-test, information gain, Pearson correlation, Spearman correlation and decision tree algorithm.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 4,
Claim 4 depends from claim 2 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 4 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein performing analysis to obtain the correlation degree among the preoperative information, the postoperative information and the survival status specifically comprises: performing analysis by use of a Kaplan-Meier analysis method so as to obtain the correlation degree among the preoperative information, the postoperative information and the survival status.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 5,
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 5 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein integrating the patients' original information data specifically comprises: dividing the preoperative information, the postoperative information and the survival status into multiple necessary features; traversing the patients' original information data and deleting data which does not contain all the necessary features; and preprocessing remaining data after the deleting and dividing the preprocessed data into a training set and a validation set.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 6,
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 6 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein preprocessing the remaining data after the deleting specifically comprises: performing one-hot encoding and normalization processing on the remaining data by use of staging features and distant metastasis features, so as to obtain the training set and the validation set.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 7,
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 7 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein a data ratio of the training set to the validation set is 9:1.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 8,
Claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
As per claim 9,
Claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
As per claim 11,
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
As per claim 12,
Claim 12 depends from claim 3 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 12 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the influence factors for survival comprise age, sex, TNM classification, incidence site, pathological type, distant metastasis, local and regional recurrence, neck recurrence and chemotherapy.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-9, 11 and 12 contain subject matter free of prior art.
The Examiner has conducted a thorough search of the prior art and could not find a single reference, or combination of references with adequate rationale to combine, to teach the limitations of “training in the second data set by using another LightGBM-model, so as to obtain a survival time period prediction model if judging that a survival probability of the target patient is less than or equal to a preset value according to the postoperative survival probability prediction model” and “in response to a survival probability of the target patient being less than 50%,providing the preoperative information, postoperative information, and survival status of the target patient to the survival time prediction model, which provides the predicted survival time for the target patient.” The closest prior art that the Examiner was able to find to teach these limitations were:
Teverovskiy et al. (US 2007/0099219; herein referred to as Teverovskiy): which teaches a survival probability prediction model that predicts a patients survival chances of overcoming prostate cancer given preoperative, postoperative and survival status information. However, this reference appears to only teach a single model, not specifically LightGBM-based that does not include specifically predicting a survival time, as opposed to two separate LightGBM models. Furthermore, the reference does not provide basis for training the second model, if one existed, once it had been determined that survivability was less than a threshold value according to postoperative survival probability.
Taoka et al. (US 2023/0298751 herein referred to as Taoka): which teaches a lightGBM prediction model for determining a survival time for a patient with cancer. However, it is not clear that this model incorporates preoperative, postoperative or survival status for the patient in this prediction determination, nor is this model appear to be used in response to a threshold survivability probability being below a specified amount.
As it can be seen, the prior art, alone or in combination, does not teach the limitations of claim 1. Claim 11 recites similar limitations. Accordingly, claims 1-9, 11 and 12 contain subject matter free of prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 13, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are persuasive. The Applicant’s amendments obviate the Examiner’s previous rejections. Accordingly, these rejections are removed.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the pending claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem involving predicting technology. Specifically, their claimed invention provides enhanced prediction capability at a more accurate level then conventional technology. This improvement in technology provides a practical application of the alleged abstract idea.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While it is understood that the prediction methods disclosed provide an accuracy of at least 91%, it is not clear what technology here is being improved. Predictive methods have existed for as long as humans have existed. We as a species have sought out ways to predict the future to varying levels of success and accuracy. It stands to reasons that given this historical context, the field of prediction per se does not fall into the realm of technology, but rather in the realm of human behavior. Accordingly, advancements or improvements to this prediction pertain to an improvement of an abstract idea as opposed to any sort of technology. The technology implemented by the claims are written at such a high level of generality, such as LightGBM-model, that there is nearly no technical discussed as to what problems with technology exist and how this alleged technical problem is being solved. LightGBM is a generic class of modeling that uses predictive modeling to provide a fitting of a gradient boosted method to a dataset. This is at most mathematical manipulation of data being applied to or by a computer.
The Applicant further argues that the steps of “data integration”, “training models based on correlations” and “determining survival probability to trigger the training of another LightGBM-model” are not routine computer functions.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The elements of “data integration” and “training models based on correlations” are absolutely routine in the context of machine learning models. All machine learning models do these functions. For the element of “determining survival probability to trigger the training of another LightGBM-model” it was never the argument that this particular element was routine, but rather this function of determining survival probability to trigger a different predictive model was an abstract idea being applied to the LightGBM computer model. This rebuttal by the Applicant does not address the generic nature of the hardware that implements that steps of the abstract idea.
The Applicant further argues that the improvements in prediction provide something significantly more than the abstract idea.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Only an additional element to an abstract idea can provide something significantly more than the abstract idea. An element cannot exist as an additional element to an abstract idea and part of the abstract idea at the same time. An abstract idea per se cannot provide its own basis for significantly more. The argued improvement has been shown to pertain to the abstract idea. Accordingly, this improved abstract idea cannot provide its own something significantly more than the abstract idea because the argued improvement is part of the abstract idea.
The Applicant further argues that claim 8 is eligible because the claim recites an “intelligent terminal” including specific hardware features.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely tying the abstract idea to a particular computer environment is not sufficient to overcome rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 8 merely applies the abstract idea to this computer environment. If the Applicant is arguing for a “Particular Machine” this argument also fails given that the applicant’s disclosure makes no reference to any particular machine, but rather describes that the hardware that implements the steps of the abstract idea are at a level of a generic computer.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 are persuasive for the reasons indicated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A NEWTON whose telephone number is (313)446-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM (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, PETER H. CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/CHAD A NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights