Detailed Notice
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
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 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.
Step 1:
In the instant case, claims 1-18 are directed toward a computer-implemented method (i.e. a process), claim 19 is directed toward a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (i.e., manufacture), and claim 20 is directed toward an information processing apparatus (i.e., machine). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A—Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 19, and 20 recite steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitations of a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Claim 1 recites: “A computer-implemented method comprising: performing a prediction process, the prediction process comprising: based on input data comprising values of physiological measurement variables of a patient over a time period, computing first correlations in the input data, the computing comprising computing short range temporal correlations between values of physiological measurement variables at consecutive time steps using an attention-based mechanism and computing spatial correlations between values of different physiological measurement variables at a same time step using a self-attention mechanism: generating first updated node embeddings based on the input data and the first correlations, each node corresponding to a physiological measurement variable at a time step; using a recurrent neural network (RNN), which is stored in memory as linked data nodes, updating the first updated node embeddings based on second correlations between the first updated node embeddings to generate temporally updated embeddings; and based on the temporally updated embeddings and using a neural network (NN), which is stored in memory as linked data nodes, generating a prediction indicating whether the patient will have sepsis”.
The limitations of performing a prediction process, the prediction process comprising: based on input data comprising values of physiological measurement variables of a patient over a time period, computing first correlations in the input data, the computing comprising computing short range temporal correlations between values of physiological measurement variables at consecutive time steps and computing spatial correlations between values of different physiological measurement variables at a same time step: generating first updated node embeddings based on the input data and the first correlations, each node corresponding to a physiological measurement variable at a time step; updating the first updated node embeddings based on second correlations between the first updated node embeddings to generate temporally updated embeddings; and based on the temporally updated embeddings and, generating a prediction indicating whether the patient will have sepsis, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a mental process that a person would mentally perform for predicting a risk of sepsis, but instead automates the process via a computer model, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Further, the abstract idea of claims 19 and 20 are identical to the abstract idea of claim 1. This limitation, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, also falls under the abstract idea of mental process because a person would mentally perform for predicting a risk of sepsis, but instead automates the process via a computer model.
Dependent claims 2-18 include other limitations, for example:
Claim 4 further recites the abstract idea of a mathematical concept s (i.e., "the prediction process comprises: generating multi-dimensional feature encodings based on the input data; and generating initial node embeddings by multiplying the multi-dimensional feature encodings with weight vectors, wherein the computing the first correlations comprises computing the first correlations based on the initial node embeddings");
Claim 5 further recites the abstract idea of a mathematical concept (i.e., "computing the short range temporal correlations for the values corresponding to the second time step in the order of time steps comprises computing correlations between cache of the initial node embeddings corresponding to the second time step and each of the initial node embeddings corresponding to the first time step; and computing the short range temporal correlations for the values corresponding to each of the third and subsequent time steps in the order of time steps comprises computing correlations between each of the initial node embeddings corresponding to the time step concerned and each of the first updated node embeddings corresponding to the preceding time step");
Claim 6 further recites the abstract idea of a mathematical concept (i.e., "the prediction process comprises updating the initial node embeddings based on the short-range temporal correlations to generate intermediate node embeddings");
Claim 7 further recites the abstract idea of a mathematical concept (i.e., "generating the first updated node embeddings comprises updating cache intermediate node embedding based on its correlation with each other intermediate node embedding corresponding to the same time step");
Claim 8 further recites the abstract idea of a mathematical concept (i.e., "performing a training process, the training process comprising: performing the prediction process using training data corresponding to a training patient as the input data; adjusting at least one network weight used in the attention-based mechanism. Based on a difference between the generated prediction and a training prediction corresponding to the training data"). It also contains the additional elements of "the self-attention mechanism, the RNN, and the NN";
Claim 10 further recites the abstract idea of a mathematical concept (i.e., "the values of at least one of the physiological measurement variables..."). It also contains the additional elements of "sensor";
Claim 11 further recites the abstract idea of a mathematical concept (i.e., "generating the multi-dimensional feature encodings comprises, for each physiological measurement variable, performing a data binning method on the values concerned and generating, as the multi-dimensional feature encodings, a feature vector for each value");
Claim 12 further recites the abstract idea of a mathematical concept (i.e., "generating the spatial correlations..."). "). It also contains the additional elements of "key-query-value self-attention mechanism";
Claim 13 further recites the abstract idea of a mathematical concept (i.e., "generating the short-range temporal correlations"). It also contains the additional elements of "key-query-value attention-based mechanism";
Claim 14 further recites the abstract idea of a mathematical concept (i.e., "the prediction process comprises repeatedly generating said first correlations and updating the node embeddings concerned, comprising, for each subsequent iteration, starting with the first updated node embeddings of the previous iteration in place of the initial node embeddings");
Claim 15 further recites the abstract idea of a mathematical concept (i.e., "generating the temporally updated embeddings... to compute the second correlations between the first updated node embeddings"). It also contains the additional elements of "the RNN";
Claim 16 further recites the abstract idea of a mathematical concept (i.e., "generating the spatial and short-range temporal correlations comprises computing dot-products between the node embeddings concerned");
Claim 17 further recites the additional element of a mathematical concept (i.e., "the RNN comprises at least one gated recurrent unit, GRU"), which is a part of the additional elements of "the RNN";
Claim 18 further recites the abstract idea of a mathematical concept (i.e., "the NN is configured to generate the prediction in the form of a binary classification task"). It also contains the additional elements of "the NN";
But as stated above, these only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 19, and 20.
However, recitation of an abstract idea is not the end of the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis. Each of the claims must be analyzed for additional elements that indicate the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application to determine whether the claim is considered to be “directed to” an abstract idea.
Step 2A—Prong 2:
Claims 1-20 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception—for example, the recitation of “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “computer”, “information processing apparatus”, “memory”, “processor”, “attention-based mechanism”, “self-attention mechanism”, “recurrent neural network”, and “neural network”, which amount to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see FIG. 1, FIG. 11, Pages 3-7, of the present specification, and see further MPEP 2106.05(f);
Generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, for example, “using an attention-based mechanism”, “using a self-attention mechanism”, “using a recurrent neural network (RNN)”, “using a neural network (NN)”, and “which is stored in memory as linked data nodes”, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of technology/the environment of computers, see MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-18 include other limitations, but as stated above, the limitations recited by these claims do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1, 19, and 20, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements (i.e., “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “computer”, “information processing apparatus”, “memory”, “processor”, “attention-based mechanism”, “self-attention mechanism”, “recurrent neural network”, and “neural network”) that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, which even when reevaluated under the considerations of Step 2B of the analysis, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-18 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1, 19, and 20, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection, Applicant argues the amendments of the RNN and NN are stored in memory as linked data nodes, is a specific structural implementation of a data graph in computer memory. Applicant also argues, as per the USPTO’s August 4th, 2025 Memorandum, a claim is not a mental process if it cannot practically be performed in the human mind, and that the management and traversal of a multi-variate correlation graph stored as linked data nodes in a high-speed memory environment is a technical task that cannot be performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The RNN and the NN being stored in memory as linked data nodes are not part of the abstract idea, but rather additional elements. These additional elements are recited at a high level such that they merely “apply it” to the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) states “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”).
Applicant argues the specific data structure improves the computer’s ability to handle irregular, multi-variate ICU data for sepsis prediction, which provides a technical improvement to the field of medical diagnosis. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above the specific structure is recited at a high level such that they amount to merely “apply it” to the abstract idea. Furthermore, the handling irregular, multi-variate ICU data for sepsis prediction is not a technological improvement, but a business practice improvement (improvement to an abstract idea). An abstract idea cannot integrate itself. MPEP 2106.05(a) states “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below… An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration… However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology”.
Applicant argues the operations of a recurrent neural network or attention-based mechanism or self-attention mechanism are not merely instructions to apply an alleged abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the recurrent neural network or attention-based mechanism or self-attention mechanism are recited at a high level such that they amount to “apply it”. MPEP 2106.05(f) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015)” and “By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described “the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’” 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data.” 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words “apply it”. 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims “so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem”))”. Additionally, TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 19, and 20 have been considered. Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Randolph and Poltroak, that Poltroak and Randolph do not teach the limitations of dual-attention mechanism integrated with the RNN/NN structure specifically stores as linked data nodes and that Attia does not constitute as prior art as persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHAEL SOJIN STONE whose telephone number is (571)272-8798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM - 7 PM (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 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.
/R.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights