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 has been considered and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on 3-5-26 has been entered and are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception since the invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves the technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The machine learning model is used in performing an analysis to determine an adjustment of healthcare actions in a high risk sub population.
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 1-20 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 1-20 are drawn to a computer implemented computer readable non-transitory medium, system which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 1, 13 recite “receiving characteristics data for each subject of a population, the characteristic data comprising demographic data and measure health data for each subject”, “providing the characteristics data to train a machine learning model, the machine learning model being trained to predict one or more biological outcomes for each of the subject of the population”, “during training of the machine learning model imposing a resource limitation based loss function (highest k loss function) that uses a soft sorting method to optimize accuracy of the machine learning model for a subpopulation of the subjects who are at the highest risk for one or more biological outcomes in the population”, “during utilization of the machine learning model, providing characteristics data on a subsequent population of subjects and subsequent resource limitation data to the machine learning model and the machine learning model determining one or more biological outcomes for a high risk sub population of the subsequent population and ranking the high risk subpopulation for allocation of resources responsive to the one or more biological outcomes for the high risk sub population of the subsequent population”, “transmitting the ranking to one or more of a healthcare provider and one or more subjects of the high risk population to adjust one or more health care actions for the one or more subjects of the high risk sub population”.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally the claims can also be interpreted as mental process since it gathers, analyzes the data. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including a “computer”, “system”, “one or more processors”, “one or more memories”, “device of one or more of a healthcare provider and one or more subjects of the high risk population” which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims recite the additional element of “storing the ranking”, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do 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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
Paragraph 51 recite “a computer (e.g., comprising a processor(s) and GPU(s)) to the techniques herein. Examples of such computer-readable storage media include a hard disk, a solid state storage device/media, a CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVDs), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, a ROM (Read Only Memory), a PROM (Programmable Read Only Memory), an EPROM (Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory), an EEPROM (Electrically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory) and a Flash memory. More generally, the processing units of the computing device 102 may represent a CPU-type processing unit, a GPU-type processing unit, a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), another class of digital signal processor (DSP), or other hardware logic components that can be driven by a CPU”.
Paragraph 39 recite “HR system 106, the high-risk patient prediction computing device 102 is connected to a healthcare computing system 107, such as may be used by a hospital system, that has a resources limitation data store 109 storing resource limitation data. For example, the data 109 may store personnel data such as personnel type, expertise, and availability. Other personnel data may include whether the personnel are able to provide telehealth services, in home services, or only at the hospital services. Further the data 109 may store facilities data such as data on available space for admitting a patient and for administering treatment to a patient, location data for determining which patients are in a vicinity of service. Monitoring data, such as available health monitoring equipment and equipment type, may be stored in the data 109, as well. Medical imagers data, such as medical imager type (X-Ray, CT Scan, PET, Ultrasound, etc.) may be stored in the data 109, where such data may include type, availability, and/or usage schedule”.
The claims recite the additional element of “storing the ranking”, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-8, 12,14-20 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein. Additionally, the devices mentioned in dependents claim are used as input devices.
Claims 9-11 fall under Mathematical concepts.
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 REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights