DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to amendment and remarks dated 5/15/2026. Claims 1, 5, 8, 10-14 have been amended. Claims 1-14 are pending.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-14 are drawn to a method for selecting questions to be answered by a patient, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
(currently amended) A computer-implemented method for selecting questions to be answered by a patient, the method comprising:
retrieving, from the at least one sensor (8), sensor data (7) indicative of the health condition of the patient;
receiving, from a patient database (3), patient data (5) indicative of a health condition of the patient, the patient data (5) comprising the sensor data (7) which has been generated by at least one sensor (8) for determining the health condition of the patient;
inputting the patient data (5) as input data (9) into a question selection algorithm (10) configured for analyzing events detected by the sensor (8) and selecting questions relating to the detected events, based on the input data (9), from a list (6) of predetermined questions stored in a question database (4); and
wherein the patient data (5) additionally comprises at least one of anamnesis data (16), diagnosis data (17), or medication data (19) of the patient.
These recited underlined limitations fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities" grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to certain methods of organizing human activity – managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The limitations of -- Receiving patient data (including sensor data) indicative of a condition; Inputting the data into a question selection algorithm; Selecting questions from a predetermined list; and Outputting selected question(s) for the patient to answer as drafted and detailed above, are steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites steps for organizing human interactions. The claimed invention is directed to collecting information, analyzing/processing information, and presenting the results (i.e., a tailored set of questions) which is a concept relating to tracking or filtering information. Tracking information or filtering content has been found to be an abstract idea and a method of organizing human behavior. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). This is a method of organizing patient/sensor data thus falling into one category of abstract idea. That is other than reciting “computer-implemented” language, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from describing concepts related to receiving and organizing patient data between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts related to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
(currently amended) A computer-implemented method for selecting questions to be answered by a patient, the method comprising:
retrieving, from the at least one sensor (8), sensor data (7) indicative of the health condition of the patient;
receiving, from a patient database (3), patient data (5) indicative of a health condition of the patient, the patient data (5) comprising the sensor data (7) which has been generated by at least one sensor (8) for determining the health condition of the patient;
inputting the patient data (5) as input data (9) into a question selection algorithm (10) configured for analyzing events detected by the sensor (8) and selecting questions relating to the detected events, based on the input data (9), from a list (6) of predetermined questions stored in a question database (4); and
wherein the patient data (5) additionally comprises at least one of anamnesis data (16), diagnosis data (17), or medication data (19) of the patient.
The additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) — generating data from a sensor and certain types of patient data (anamneses; diagnosis; or medication) — amount to no more than limitations which generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)– for example, the recitation of performing the functions by the server merely limits the abstract idea the environment of a computer. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to 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 and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and the same analysis applies with regards to whether they amount to “significantly more.” Therefore, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the at least one abstract idea.
The following dependent claims further the define the abstract idea or are also directed to an abstract idea itself:
Dependent claims 5-7 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 2-4, 9, 20, 11-14: These claims specify generating data by a sensor; applying an artificial neural network; a data processing device and computer readable medium; and wherein the user device (33) is one of a telephone, smartphone, smartwatch, tablet, laptop, or personal computer, which thus does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Claims 8: This claim generally recites training the question selection algorithm with input and output data which thus amount to mere instructions to apply an exception by invoking the computer as a tool OR reciting the idea of a solution (i.e. claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished) or outcome (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The dependent claims further do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims1-14 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant begins arguments on pg. 6 of the Remarks traversing the current rejection under 35 USC 101. Applicant first argues that claim 1 has been amended to clarify the technical nature of the claimed invention. Applicant identifies the newly recited steps of retrieving sensor data, analyzing events detected by the sensor, selecting questions relating to the detected events, sending the selected questions to a user device, receiving answers, and updating patient data in the patient database. This argument is not persuasive.
Characterizing a claimed process as “technical” does not establish patent eligibility. Eligibility is determined from the limitations actually recited in the claim and the functions performed by those limitations. As amended, claim 1 continues to recite receiving health-related information, analyzing that information to determine which questions should be asked, presenting the selected questions to a patient, receiving the patient’s answers, and recording information derived from those answers. These limitations recite the collection, evaluation, presentation, and storage of information in connection with a patient questionnaire.
The newly added limitation requiring the question selection algorithm to analyze “events detected by the sensor” merely specifies the type or source of information considered when selecting questions, but does not specify any technological improvement. Accordingly, the amendments do not alter the conclusion that claim 1 recites an abstract process of evaluating patient information and selecting corresponding questions.
Applicant next argues on pg. 7 that claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because it recites an integrated workflow involving: retrieving sensor data from a physical sensor; analyzing sensor-detected events and selecting related questions; sending the questions to a user device; receiving answers from the user device; and updating the patient database based on the answers. Examiner agrees that the additional elements must be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Nevertheless, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In the pending claims, the sensor is used to obtain information that is evaluated during the question-selection process. Retrieving information from the sensor constitutes data gathering that supplies the information upon which the abstract analysis is performed. Claim 1 does not require an improvement in sensor operation, sensor accuracy, sensor sampling, signal processing, power consumption, transmission bandwidth, or event-detection reliability. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to the operation of the sensor, databases, user device, processor, or communications network.
Applicant further argues that the claimed ordered combination creates a “closed-loop technical system” tying physical sensor measurements to dynamic question generation and a feedback mechanism that updates the patient database so that subsequent question selections benefit from updated patient information. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Claim 1 requires updating patient data based on received answers. The claim therefore does not require the asserted technical feedback loop. It requires storing or updating patient information after answers are received. The possibility that the updated information could be used during a future question-selection operation is not a limitation of claim 1.
Applicant argues on pg. 7-8 that the specification identifies a technical problem because existing automated patient surveys are static and manually adapting questions for individual patients may be time-consuming. Applicant further argues that the claimed invention provides a technical solution by efficiently creating highly personalized patient surveys. This argument is not persuasive.
The identified problems concern the content, personalization, and administrative efficiency of patient questionnaires. The asserted improvement is that questions can be selected more efficiently and tailored to a particular patient or patient journey. Improving the relevance or efficiency of an abstract questionnaire-selection process does not, by itself, constitute an improvement to computer technology or another technical field. Claim 1 does not recite a new database architecture, sensor configuration, communications protocol, signal-processing technique, computer-processing technique, or medical-device operation.
Applicant next argues on pg. 8 that claim 1 is analogous to USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 42, concerning the transmission of notifications when medical records are updated. The analogy is not persuasive.
Example 42 addresses a particular network-based mechanism for communicating medical-record updates. The eligible claim in that example recites a specific arrangement involving a network, persistent connections, monitoring for changes to medical records, and transmitting notifications through the persistent connections when corresponding records are updated. In contrast, claim 1 uses a user device to display selected questions and receive answers. The patient database is then updated based on those answers. The mere fact that both the present claim and Example 42 involve medical information, user devices, and database updates does not make the claims analogous for eligibility purposes. The practical application in Example 42 resulted from the particular network-based solution recited in that claim. Claim 1 does not recite a corresponding technological solution.
Applicant next argues that claim 1 is analogous to the claims found eligible in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. because claim 1 allegedly recites specific rules for analyzing sensor-detected events and selecting questions relating to those events. This argument is not persuasive.
The claims in McRO recited a specific rule-based process that used defined relationships involving phonemes, sub-sequences, timing, and morph-weight sets to produce automated lip synchronization. The court’s analysis emphasized the particular claimed rules and the manner in which those rules produced an improved animation result. Claim 1 does not recite comparable rules. Instead, claim 1 functionally states that the algorithm analyzes events and selects questions relating to those events. This language describes the intended function and result of the algorithm without claiming the particular rules or technical procedure that achieve the result. Claim 1 is therefore distinguishable from the specific rule-based technological process considered in McRO.
Applicant next argues that the amended claim does not merely recite generic computer functions in a healthcare environment because it recites concrete operations involving sensor-data retrieval, event analysis, question selection, transmission, receipt of answers, and database updating. This argument is not persuasive.
A limitation is not necessarily a meaningful technological limitation merely because it requires a physical sensor, user device, or database. The eligibility inquiry considers how those components are used in the claimed method. The claim does not recite an improvement in how any component performs its technical function.
The claimed operations therefore generally link the abstract questionnaire-selection process to a patient-monitoring environment and implement that process using generic data collection, processing, transmission, presentation, and storage functions. Considered individually and in combination, those limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Finally, Applicant argues on pg. 9 of the Remarks that, even if claim 1 fails Step 2A, Prong Two, the ordered combination provides an inventive concept because the combination of sensor-data retrieval, event-specific analysis, dynamic question selection, transmission to a user device, receipt of answers, and database updating is not a well-understood, routine, or conventional arrangement. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
At Step 2B, the additional elements must be evaluated individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception. As an ordered combination, these elements implement the expected sequence of an automated adaptive questionnaire: obtain patient information, select relevant questions, present the questions, collect answers, and record the answers. The ordered combination does not recite an unconventional technical interaction among the components.
Subject Matter free from Prior Art
Jiao (2017/0103180) teaches selecting health-related questions based on user health information obtained from an activity-monitoring device. However, Jiao does not clearly teach that a question selection algorithm analyzes an event detected by a sensor and selects, from a predetermined question database, questions relating to that same sensor-detected event. Rather, Jiao generally selects health-education or assessment questions based on a user’s health status or profile
Ram (2017/0301258) teaches receiving and analyzing sensor data, identifying user activities or conditions, presenting questions to a user, receiving answers, and updating a user model. However, Ram does not clearly teach using a question selection algorithm to analyze an event detected by a sensor and select predetermined questions specifically relating to
The closest foreign prior art of record Ozgonul (WO2021061061) teaches at least one application run on the second electronic device and configured to provide an interface for the physician to view and answer questions or information sent by the user in audio, text, image or video format. The artificial intelligence algorithm that detects the messages appropriate to the profile.
The closest prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail to expressly teach:
“inputting the patient data (5) as input data (9) into a question selection algorithm (10) configured for analyzing events detected by the sensor (8) and selecting questions relating to the detected events, based on the input data (9), from a list (6) of predetermined questions stored in a question database (4).”
No final decision on patentability has been made in light of pending rejections.
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 LINH GIANG MICHELLE LE whose telephone number is (571)272-8207. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8:30am - 5:30pm PST.
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, JASON DUNHAM can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
LINH GIANG "MICHELLE" LE
PRIMARY EXAMINER
Art Unit 3686
/LINH GIANG LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686 7/28/26
Prosecution Insights