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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment dated 22 May 2026, the following occurred: Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 19 were amended; Claims 2, 9, and 16 were cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are pending.
Priority
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/515,545 dated 25 July 2023.
Claim Interpretation
The following constitutes the Examiner’s best understanding of the features of the claim:
Event = injury (see Spec. Para. 0047), disease (see Fig. 12, Spec. Para. 0125), or a condition (see Spec. Para. 0125)
Event location = geographic location where the injury occurred and/or where treatment will occur (see Spec. Para. 0048, 0133)
Remediation = treatment / medical care (see Spec. Para. 0047) or diagnosis of a condition (see Spec. Para. 0183)
Category of remediation = category of care (see Spec. Para. 0093) such as medical services, equipment, transportation, and labor (see Spec. Para. 0114) or a diagnosis of a medical condition (see Spec. Para. 0176)
remedial location designation = where treatment occurs such as in-facility or out or facility (see Spec. Para. 0114)
remediation preference type = surgery, medication, inpatient treatment, outpatient treatment, equipment, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and any other treatment related to the care of an injury service length (see Spec. Para. 0047)
number of annual units = undescribed, perhaps cost/payment per year (see Spec. Para. 0047)
uncovered equivalent = uninsured cost, perhaps an out-of-pocket payment (see Spec. Para. 0081)
an equivalency system = part of a computer that calculates a localized equivalency (cost) for a specific administrative location (e.g., zip code) (see Spec. Para. 0051)
an equipment system = part of a computer that calculates the cost of equipment (see Spec. Para. 0066)
a statistics system = part of a computer that maintains a collection of location-based cost differences for different locations (see Spec. Para. 0067)
a remedial substance system = part of a computer that maintains drug/vaccine information (see Spec. Para. 0068)
a service system = part of a computer that calculates the cost of providing services to a user/patient (see Spec. Para. 0069)
a projection = a cost estimate for treatment of an injury (see Spec. Para. 0047)
Specification
The Specification at Para. 0128 is objected to because it recites “The evaluation score can be determined by dividing either the second number of remediation preferences or the second number of remediation preferences by the first number of remediation preferences.” The Examiner believes that this should read: The evaluation score can be determined by dividing either the second number of remediation preferences or the third number of remediation preferences by the first number of remediation preferences. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite (Claim 1 being representative) “wherein the projection and the remediation assessment score are dynamically updated in response to changes in the personal profile, the first event location, or the remediation profile.” The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation is required to occur. No changes are recited to occur in the claim(s), thus it is unclear whether the projection and the remediation assessment score are required to be dynamically updated. See MPEP 2173.05(g): “Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” and thus be indefinite. […] For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear” (internal citations omitted).
By virtue of their dependence from Claim 1, 8, or 15, this basis of rejection also applies to dependent Claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20.
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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a method, system, and computer-readable medium (“CRM”) for event based predictive modeling, which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
The limitations of (Claim 1 being representative) collecting a personal profile of a user; receiving information identifying a first event location for an event associated with the user; receiving at least one remediation profile for remediation of the user, wherein each remediation profile comprises one or more of a category of remediation, a remedial location designation, a remediation preference type, a service length, a number of annual units, or an uncovered equivalent; for each remediation profile: identifying, from a plurality of data analysis techniques, a set of data analysis techniques associated with the remediation profile, each data analysis techniques comprising one or more of an equivalency analysis technique, an equipment analysis technique, a statistics analysis technique, a remedial substance analysis technique, or a service analysis technique; providing the personal profile, the first event location, and the remediation profile as input to the set of data analysis techniques; generating, using the set of data analysis techniques, a projection as output for each remediation profile; and providing information associated with the projection for each remediation profile by: determining a remediation assessment score based on a comparison of the remediation profile to one or more guidelines applicable to the category of remediation; generating a visual representation of the remediation assessment score; and providing instructions to display the visual representation as the information associated with the projection, wherein the projection and the remediation assessment score are dynamically updated in response to changes in the personal profile, the first event location, or the remediation profile, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a data processor (computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the computer, processor/memory, or CRM, this claim encompasses a person collecting information related to a patient injury, applying various data analysis techniques, generating a projection in a profile, and presenting the profile in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people 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.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of (Claim 1) a computer, (Claim 8) one or more memories and one or more processors, or (Claim 15) a CRM that implements the identified abstract idea. These devices are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer; see Spec. Para. 0205) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims further recite the additional element of “a user device” The suer device merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does 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, the additional element of using (Claim 1) a computer, (Claim 8) one or more memories and one or more processors, or (Claim 15) a CRM to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a user device” was determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 re similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 17 merely describe(s) outputting and receiving information, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 17 also includes the additional element of “a graphical user interface” which is interpreted to be part of the user device and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 17 also includes an “interactive map” that does not have any “integrative” functionality associated with it and is thus interpreted to be part of the abstract idea. Should the map actually have interactive functionality, the interactive map generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use. Generally linking is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more. See also Mapquest, c.2004.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 merely describe(s) receiving additional location data and updating the projection, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 also include an “interactive map” which is analyzed the same manner as in Claim(s) 3, 10, 17.
Claim(s) 5, 12, 19 merely describe(s) providing information, receiving a response, querying the data analysis techniques to identify matching data and providing the matching data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 merely describe(s) receiving data and adding the data to the remediation profile, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 7, 14 merely describe(s) the event location, which further defines the abstract idea.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Soisson (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2020/0020043) in view of Kartoun et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2019/0180874).
REGARDING CLAIM 1
Soisson teaches the claimed computer-implemented method comprising:
collecting, by a computer system, a personal profile of a user; [Para. 0059, 0064 teaches that a patient profile is received by a computer system.]
receiving, by the computer system, information identifying a first event location for an event associated with the user; [Para. 0068 teaches that patient location data is received.]
receiving, by the computer system, at least one remediation profile for remediation of the user, wherein each remediation profile comprises one or more of [Para. 0079, 0082 teaches that the following are received by the computer as part of a questionnaire. The Examiner notes that only one “remediation profile” is required and the remediation profile only requires one of the following.]
a category of remediation, [Para. 0082 teaches that the patient indicates that surgery (an appendectomy for example) is planned (i.e., a medical service; a category of remediation). This is interpreted as part of a remediation profile.]
a remedial location designation, [Para. 0079 teaches that the patient profile includes an indication that the patient will stay in a hospital overnight. This is interpreted as part of a remediation profile.]
a remediation preference type, [Para. 0069, 0082 teaches that the patient indicates that surgery (an appendectomy for example) is planned (also a remediation preference type). Para. 0080, 0081 similarly teaches that the patient selects a procedure. This is interpreted as part of a remediation profile.]
a service length,
a number of annual units, or
an uncovered equivalent;
for each remediation profile:
identifying, from a plurality of data systems, a set of data systems associated with the remediation profile, each data system comprising one or more of [Para. 0064, 0073, 0090 teaches that the following are identified. The Examiner notes that only two of the following (a plurality…comprising one or more) are required.]
an equivalency system, [Para. 0064, 0090 teaches that the cost for a geographic area is calculated based on the indicated surgery (remediation profile), thus the system teaches an equivalency system.]
an equipment system,
a statistics system,
a remedial substance system, or
a service system; [Para. 0073, 0090 teaches a pricing application (service system) uses the surgery indication to determine a cost, thus the system teaches a service system.]
providing the personal profile, the first event location, and the remediation profile as input to the set of data systems; [Para. 0090 teaches that the patient profile data, including the patient location, along with the procedure (remediation profile) are used by the system to estimate the total cost of the procedure(s), thus they are provided to the estimation system.]
generating, using the set of data systems, a projection as output for each remediation profile; and [Para. 0090 teaches that the cost is estimated for the procedure (remediation profile).]
providing, for presentation at a user device, information associated with the projection for each remediation profile, by […]. [Fig. 25, Para. 0068, 0090 teaches that the cost estimate is communicated to the user via a web portal. Para. 0059 reaches that the web portal is accessed by a user interface device.]
Soisson may not explicitly teach
determining a remediation assessment score based on a comparison of the remediation profile to one or more guidelines applicable to the category of remediation;
generating a visual representation of the remediation assessment score; and
providing instructions that cause the user device to display the visual representation as the information associated with the projection,
wherein the projection and the remediation assessment score are dynamically updated in response to changes in the personal profile, the first event location, or the remediation profile.
Kartoun at Para. 0035, 0040, 0045, 0046, 0057, 0075 teaches that it was known in the are of computerized healthcare, to determine a score indicating a comparison of a treatment to guidelines and to display a notification
determining a remediation assessment score based on a comparison of the remediation profile to one or more guidelines applicable to the category of remediation; [Kartoun at Para. 0040, 0045 compares selected treatment (remediation profile data; the planned surgery of Soisson) with treatments recommended by treatment guidelines for a current procedure (category of remediation; the surgery of Soisson). Kartoun at Para. 0046 teaches calculating a second opinion recommendation score (a remediation assessment score) that indicates the differences between the current treatment and the identified treatment (i.e., the second opinion treatment).]
generating a visual representation of the remediation assessment […]; and [Kartoun at Para. 0075 teaches that a notification is created.]
providing instructions that cause the user device to display the visual representation as the information […], [Kartoun at Para. 0035, 0057 teaches that the notification is displayed on a client device of the patient.]
wherein the projection and the remediation assessment score are dynamically updated in response to changes in the personal profile, the first event location, or the remediation profile. [Kartoun at Para. 0023 teaches that the patient’s data (personal profile) is continuously analyzed (interpreted to include the procedure cost analysis of Soisson) meaning that the analysis is responsive to changes (and also responsive to no changes).]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the treatment cost estimation system of Soisson to determine a score indicating a comparison of a treatment to guidelines and to display a notification as taught by Kartoun, with the motivation of improving the decision-making process performed by human beings (see Kartoun at Para. 0021).
Soisson/Kartoun may not explicitly teach that the score that is calculated is included with the cost data that is displayed to the user/patient; however, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the calculated score of Kartoun with the displayed cost data of Soisson since the combination of the two references is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR rationale A). It can be seen that each element claimed is present in either Soisson or Kartoun. Including a calculated score (as taught by Kartoun, see citations above) does not change or affect the normal display of cost estimate data information of Soisson. Displaying cost data would be performed the same way even with the addition of the calculated score. Since the functionalities of the elements in Soisson and Kartoun do not interfere with each other, the results of the combination would be predictable.
REGARDING CLAIM 3
Soisson/Kartoun teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Soisson/Kartoun further teaches
wherein receiving information identifying the first event location comprises:
providing, by the computer system, instructions to cause the user device to display a graphical user interface comprising an interactive map; and [Soisson at Fig. 24 teaches display of a map with the patient location displayed. The Examiner notes that no interaction is claimed to occur within the map and thus “interactive map” is a non-functional label.]
receiving, by the computer system, information identifying the first event location from the user device, [Soisson at Para. 0068 teaches that patient location data is received.]
wherein the information identifying the first event location is provided as input to the interactive map. [Soisson at Fig. 24 teaches that the patient location is displayed by the map and thus the location is “provided as input” into the map, which displays the location.]
The Examiner notes that should the claim be amended to state that the interactive map receives input into the map from the patient identifying a location, Patt will be cited to teach this feature.
REGARDING CLAIM 7
Soisson/Kartoun teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Soisson/Kartoun further teaches
wherein the event location is a location at which the remediation of the user is to be performed. [Soisson at Fig. 24, 25, Para. 0043, 0068 teaches that the location is the location where the treatment will occur (i.e., Dallas, TX; “Hospitals near you”).]
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 8 AND 10
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 1 and 3, respectively, thus Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 1 and 3.
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 14
Claim(s) 14 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 7, thus Claim(s) 14 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 7.
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 15 AND 17
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 1 and 3, respectively, thus Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 1 and 3.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Soisson (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2020/0020043) in view of Kartoun et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2019/0180874) in view of Patt et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2023/0110486).
REGARDING CLAIM 4
Soisson/Kartoun teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claims 1 and 3.
Soisson/Kartoun may not explicitly teach
wherein providing the information associated with the projection for each remediation profile comprises:
receiving, by the computer system, information identifying a second event location from the user device, wherein the information identifying the second event location is provided as input to the interactive map; and
updating, by the computer system, the projection based at least in part on the second event location.
Patt at Para. 0060, 0061, 0149 teaches that it was known in the art of computerized healthcare, at the time of filing, to receive location information via an interactive map that indicates the location where injuries were sustained and determine associated costs
wherein providing the information associated with the projection for each remediation profile comprises:
receiving, by the computer system, information identifying a second event location from the user device, wherein the information identifying the second event location is provided as input to the interactive map; and [Patt at Para. 0060, 0061 teaches that the location of an accident and resultant injuries (plural, one of which is interpreted as a second event) are indicated in a map.]
updating, by the computer system, the projection based at least in part on the second event location. [Para. 0149 teaches creating a cost estimate based on the injuries (plural) which occurred at the location, which is interpreted as updating the cost estimate of Soisson.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the treatment cost estimation system of Soisson having the determination of a score indicating a comparison of a treatment to guidelines and display of a notification of Kartoun to receive location information via an interactive map that indicates the location where injuries were sustained and determine associated costs as taught by Patt, with the motivation of improving the accuracy of contextual information gathering related to an event (see Patt at Para. 0021).
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 11 AND 18
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 4, thus Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 4.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Soisson (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2020/0020043) in view of Kartoun et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2019/0180874) in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2017/0124268).
REGARDING CLAIM 5
Soisson/Kartoun teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Soisson/Kartoun further teaches
wherein receiving the at least one remediation profile comprises:
providing, by the computer system, instructions to cause the user device to display a graphical user interface; [Soisson at Fig. 17, Para. 0083 teaches that a user interface is provided to the user.]
receiving, by the computer system and from the user device, one or more categories of remediation for the at least one remediation profile, the one or more categories including the category of remediation; [Soisson at Para. 0082 teaches that the patient indicates that surgery (an appendectomy for example) is planned (i.e., a medical service; a category of remediation).]
Soisson/Kartoun may not explicitly teach
querying, by the computer system, the plurality of data systems to identify a plurality of matching remediation preference types that correspond to the one or more categories of remediation; and
providing, by the computer system, instructions to cause the user device to display at least one of the plurality of matching remediation preference types on the graphical user interface.
Zhang at Fig. 4, Para. 0032, 0037, 0065 teaches that it was known in the art of computerized healthcare, at the time of filing, to determine alternate treatments based on patient preference data and to display the alternate treatments
querying, by the computer system, the plurality of data systems to identify a plurality of matching remediation preference types that correspond to the one or more categories of remediation; and [Zhang at Para. 0032, 0037 teaches a software application (interpreted to correspond to one of the “systems” of Claim 1) that identifies alternate treatment recommendations for a particular treatment decision (the treatment of Soisson) based on inputted patient preferences. The alternate treatment recommendations are interpreted as “matching remediation preference types that correspond to the one or more categories of remediation” there being no claimed description of what “matching” or “that correspond” entail.]
providing, by the computer system, instructions to cause the user device to display at least one of the plurality of matching remediation preference types on the graphical user interface. [Fig. 4, Para. 0065 teaches that the alternate treatments are displayed.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the treatment cost estimation system of Soisson having the determination of a score indicating a comparison of a treatment to guidelines and display of a notification of Kartoun to determine alternate treatments based on patient preference data and to display the alternate treatments at taught by Zhang, with the motivation of simplifying the decision-making process (see Zhang at Para. 0033).
REGARDING CLAIM 6
Soisson/Kartoun/Zhang teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claims 1 and 5. Soisson/Kartoun/Zhang further teaches
receiving, by the computer system, information identifying one or more remediation preference types of the plurality of matching remediation preference types; and [Zhang at Fig. 6-I teaches that a patient selection of a treatment is received.]
adding, by the computer system, the one or more of the plurality of matching remediation preference types to the at least one remediation profile. [Zhang at Fig. 6-I, Para. 0078 teaches that a patient treatment selection is stored in a patient decision data store (interpreted to correspond to the patient data of Soisson).]
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 12, 13, 19, AND 20
Claim(s) 12, 13, 19 and 20 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 5 or 6, thus Claim(s) 12, 13, 19 and 20 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 5 or 6.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Regarding the objection(s) to Claims 2, 9, and 16, the Applicant has cancelled these claims rendering the objection moot.
Drawings
Regarding the drawing objection(s), the Applicant has submitted replacement drawings which have alleviated several drawing issues. The drawings are accepted.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20, the Applicant has cancelled Claims 2, 9, and 16 rendering the rejection of those claims moot. Regarding the remaining claims, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
The Examiner appears to identify the claims as falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" and "mental processes" judicial exceptions. See Office Action at p. 7.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully submits that the claims were characterized as "certain methods of organizing human activity" and not a “mental process.” See Office Action at p. 7.
These specific steps, which leverage a computing system to compare structured digital remediation profiles to electronic guidelines, dynamically update assessment scores in real-time, and generate visual representations, cannot be performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. They do not relate solely to organizing human activity, but rather to a specific, technological solution to the technical problem of providing contextually accurate, dynamically updated projections and guideline-based assessments for individualized remediation planning, using a multi-component computer system.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Taking these in turn, the claim was not characterized as a mental process, so this argument is immaterial. The claims represent a series of rule or steps for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer to “providing contextually accurate, dynamically updated projections and guideline-based assessments for individualized remediation planning.” Thus, the claims represent certain methods of organizing human activity. The Applicant has not presented an argument as to why this characterization is incorrect. Finally, there is no technical problem that the claim is solving. “[P]roviding contextually accurate, dynamically updated projections and guideline-based assessments for individualized remediation planning” is what the claim does, it is not a technical problem.
Applicant respectfully submits that the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application at least because the claim limitations constitute a technical improvement to the function of a computer.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is not even remotely any improvement to the computer. Applicant is merely using the computer as a tool to process data, which is what computers are designed to do.
For example, the claims require that the computer system determines a remediation assessment score "based on a comparison of the remediation profile to one or more guidelines applicable to the category of remediation." This is not a generic comparison or mere display of information; it is a structured, technical process where the system applies codified, machine-readable guidelines to complex, user-specific remediation profiles (see Spec. [0127][0128], [0177]). The guidelines are not mere rules, but algorithmic or data-driven criteria for evaluating appropriateness or best practices for remediation options, which are stored, retrieved, and applied by the computer system.
Regarding (d), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites a generic comparison and non-descript guidelines. The Examiner is at a loss as to how these items provide an improvement to the computer. Even assuming these are specific things, they are part of the abstraction and do not in any way improve the physical operation of the computer. Again, Applicant is using a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. This does not provide an improvement to the computer by any stretch of the imagination.
In addition, the claims explicitly recite that "the projection and the remediation assessment score are dynamically updated in response to changes in the personal profile, the first event location, or the remediation profile." This means that the system operates in real-time, automatically recalculating and presenting updated information as the underlying data changes functionality that cannot be performed mentally or by routine business methods.
Regarding (e), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the abstraction was not characterized as a mental process so this argument is immaterial. There is also no evidence on record that presenting changes to data in “real-time” (which is undefined) cannot be performed by a human; healthcare professionals evaluate data in “real-time” all the time.
The claims also require the generation of a "visual representation of the remediation assessment score" and display of that representation at a user device. This is not a mere output of data, but requires the computer system to process the remediation assessment score, translate it into a graphical or otherwise visual format, and update the display in response to user or data changes. The system thus provides a specific improvement in the way computers support complex decision-making workflows for remediation planning.
Regarding (f), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. This is literally the mere output of data. There is also no improvement to the computer as discussed previously. What Applicant is describing is an improvement to the abstraction. An improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
In particular, the amendments presented herein require the use of a multi-component computer system, a set of specialized data systems ( e.g., equivalency, equipment, statistics, remedial substance, service systems), and specific processing steps that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The combination of dynamically updating projections and guideline-based remediation assessment scores, automatically presented and visually rendered, is not a generic computer function, but an unconventional arrangement of technical components and process steps.
Regarding (g), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not recite a “a multi-component computer system.” The claim recites a generic computer performing generic computer functions. Applicant is incorrectly arguing that the abstraction defines the computer. The Examiner notes that either the claim tied to a generic computer or Applicant’s disclosure is lacking written description of the “multi-component computer system” referred to by Applicant’s representative; the Examiner has assumed the former.
Regarding the well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) argument, this analysis only applies to additional elements of the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(d) states: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry (emphasis added).”). And, the WURC analysis is only required where the Examiner has asserted that the additional element(s) represent extra-solution activity. Finally, MPEP 2106.07(a) states “At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B.” This was not asserted.
There is also no “unconventional arrangement of technical components and process steps.” Initially, the process steps are part of the abstraction; it is only the additional elements that are analyzed as to whether there is an unconventional arrangement. Applicant’s claims do not recite any particular arrangement of the computer and the user device (the only additional elements in the claims) and thus this argument is facially inapplicable.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Regarding the indefiniteness rejection of Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20, the Applicant has amended the claim to overcome the basis of rejection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20, the Applicant has cancelled Claims 2, 9, and 16 rendering the rejection of those claims moot. Regarding the remaining claims, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Bachik et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2010/0169113) which discloses a system for organizing, integrating, and evaluating departments of a hospital taking into account financial margins.
Orlov et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2017/0235882) which discloses a system comprising a patient and provider app where the provider app receives biometric data and compares the data to recommendation information to determine if a recommendation is necessary.
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 JASON S TIEDEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4594. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-4:00pm, off alternate Fridays.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at 571-272-6773. 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.
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights