DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on July 7, 2026.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 18, and 19 were amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the limitations were not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention recited a method and computer-readable medium for implementing a machine learning model to assist in injury rehabilitation. The claimed invention was considered directed towards an abstract idea because the additional limitations of a network communication interface, one or more processors, memory, and a predictive machine learning model were merely used as tools to implement a process for predicting recovery times for injuries, which is an abstract idea. Predicting recovery times for injuries is included in the abstract idea sub-grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity because it is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The recited abstract idea, when combined with the additional limitations, was not integrated into a practical application and did not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the claimed invention was not considered patent eligible. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the limitations integrated any purported judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention did not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements were merely used as tools to implement the abstract idea. Such an implementation is not indicative of patent eligible subject matter. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the additional elements cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Examiner disagrees. Examiner’s 101 rejection does not rely on a finding that the additional elements of the claimed can be practically performed in the human mind, thereby making Applicant’s argument moot. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention’s combination is a specific, unconventional arrangement that supplies an inventive concept beyond any abstract idea and beyond generic computer implementation. Examiner disagrees. Applicant has not explained how an inventive concept resulted from a specific unconventional arrangement of elements in the claimed invention. Any inventive concept present in Applicant’s claimed invention comes from the abstract idea and not any arrangement of elements, and the inventive concept does not make the abstract idea any less abstract. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that the prior art did not teach or suggest executing a machine learning model “to predict a recovery timeline for the user,” “determinin[ing]…whether the user diverges from the predicted recovery timeline,” or “updat[ing] one or more of the channel, cadence, or content for checking in with the user based on a determination that the user has diverged from the predicted recovery timeline.” Applicant further argued that Examiner’s 103 rejection was improper because the motivation to combine the prior art references supply no reason to arrive at the claimed limitations and rest on impermissible hindsight. Examiner agrees. The prior art does not teach or suggest the limitations of “determinin[ing]…whether the user diverges from the predicted recovery timeline,” or “updat[ing] one or more of the channel, cadence, or content for checking in with the user based on a determination that the user has diverged from the predicted recovery timeline.” Furthermore, there lacks sufficient motivation to combine the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention. Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments persuasive and withdraws the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method Claim 19 and product Claim 10. Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[A computing system comprising:]
[a network communication interface;]
[one or more processors; and]
[a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to:]
train, using a corpus of historical claim data, [a predictive machine learning model] on injury data, identifying, for a plurality of claimants, an injury type and injury severity and healing progress information, to predict recovery times for injuries;
identify a claim event involving an injury to a user;
execute [the predictive machine learning model] on an injury type and injury severity of the injury to the user to predict a recovery timeline for the user, and to generate, according to the predicted recovery timeline, a check-in strategy to assist the user in a recovery process, wherein generating the check-in strategy includes determining a channel, cadence, and content for checking in with the user;.
determine, based on healing progress information of the user obtained during the recovery process, whether the user diverges from the predicted recovery timeline; and
update one or more of the channel, cadence, or content for checking in with the user based on a determination that the user has diverged from the predicted recovery timeline.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The network communication interface, one or more processors, memory, and predictive machine learning model in Claim 1 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim(s) 10 and 19 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a network communication interface, one or more processors, a memory, and a predictive machine learning model. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware 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. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims
Claims 2, 11, and 20 recite the following limitations:
wherein the executed instructions cause the computing system to implement the check-in strategy by initiating [a voice-AI engine] to perform voice-AI calls to the user at predetermined times during the recovery process.
Dependent claims 2, 11, and 20 recite a voice-AI engine. The voice-AI engine does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 2, 11, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 2, 11, and 20 are not patent-eligible.
Claims 3 and 12 recite the following limitations:
wherein the executed instructions cause the computing system to perform an automated injury investigation process to detect whether any fraud exists in the injury of the user.
Dependent claims 3 and 12 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and 10 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 3 and 12 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 3 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 3 and 12 are not patent-eligible.
Claims 4 and 13 recite the following limitations:
wherein [the predictive machine learning model] is trained on injury data identifying (i) injury type and injury severity resulting from a corresponding claim event, (ii) claimant-specific health factors for a plurality of claims, (iii) healing progress information for injured claimants, (iv) typical healing timelines and treatment or assistance plans for claimants, (v) recovery times for claimants, and (vi) settlement offers and settlement data for individual claims, and wherein [the predictive machine learning model] (i) determines a nature and severity of the injury to the user, and (ii) based on personal information of the user, determines the predicted recovery timeline for the user.
Dependent claims 4 and 13 recite the machine learning model. The machine learning model does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 4 and 13 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 4 and 13 are not patent-eligible.
Claims 5 and 14 recite the following limitations:
wherein the detection of any fraud comprises a claimed recovery of the user diverging from the predicted recovery timeline by a threshold amount.
Dependent claims 5 and 14 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and 10 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 5 and 14 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 5 and 14 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 5 and 14 are not patent-eligible.
Claims 6 and 15 recite the following limitations:
wherein the personal information of the user comprises at least one of an age, a gender, or a health of the user.
Dependent claims 6 and 15 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and 10 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 6 and 15 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 6 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 6 and 15 are not patent-eligible.
Claims 7 and 16 recite the following limitations:
wherein the computing system further implements the check-in strategy using an individualized flow strategy for the user as determined from previous communication session with the user.
Dependent claims 7 and 16 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and 10 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 7 and 16 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 7 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 7 and 16 are not patent-eligible.
Claims 8 and 17 recite the following limitations:
wherein the claim event is determined by initiating [a voice-AI engine] during a voice-AI call session with the user, and wherein [the predictive machine learning model] further drives the voice-AI call session with the user.
Dependent claims 8 and 17 recite a voice-AI engine and the predictive machine learning model. The voice-AI engine and predictive machine learning model do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 8 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 8 and 17 are not patent-eligible.
Claims 9 and 18 recite the following limitations:
wherein the [predictive machine learning model] drives the voice-AI call with the user by generating follow-up questions to determine a nature and severity of the injury.
Dependent claims 9 and 18 recite the predictive machine learning model. The predictive machine learning model does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 9 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 9 and 18 are not patent-eligible.
Examiner’s Statement of Reason for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. In light of Applicant's remarks, Examiner agrees that the cited reference(s) of Kelly (WO 2022/251866 A1), Patt (US 2023/0115771), Nakashima (US 2020/0411183), Clay (US 2023/0090138), Lochner (US 12,079,993), and Gulati (US 2026/0080662) do not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention. Kelly teaches systems and methods for providing workout and/or physical therapy routines to users. Patt teaches a system that determines a set of policy holders that have been impacted by a claim event. Nakashima teaches a learning system, rehabilitation support system, method, program and trained model. Clay teaches a method for predicting a recovery time for an acute or debilitating event. Lochner teaches a computer eye care system. Gulati teaches a method for the prediction of bodily injuries and their severity based on vehicle damage. However, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious limitations to “train, using a corpus of historical claim data, a predictive machine learning model on injury data identifying, for a plurality of claimants, an injury type and injury severity and healing progress information, to predict recovery times for injuries”, “determine, based on healing progress information of the user obtained during the recovery process, whether the user diverges from the predicted recovery timeline; and update one or more of the channel, cadence, or content for checking in with the user based on a determination that the user has diverged from the predicted recovery timeline”, as described by the allowed claims. Furthermore, there is not sufficient motivation to combine the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Lewis-Weber (US 12,407,761) discloses a voice-AI warning system for predicted events.
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 of 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 extension fee 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 JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 12:00 pm - 8:00 pm.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
September 2, 2026
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights