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 12/20/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections – 35 § 112(b)
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, recites in part, “determining, for the respective user types, corresponding expected engagement values indicative of expected engagement with the pharmaceutical article”. It is unclear how corresponding expected engagement values indicative of expected engagement with the pharmaceutical article, for the respective user types, are being determined. Is there an algorithm or formula that is being used to determine corresponding expected engagement values indicative of expected engagement with the pharmaceutical article, for each user type? Claims 16 and 17 recite similar limitations. Claims 1, 16 and 17 are therefore found to be indefinite, because the resulting claims does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. All dependent claims, namely claims 2-15 and 18-20 are rejected for at least the same reason.
Claim 1, recites in part, “determining, based on the corresponding expected engagement values, respective content templates for the plurality of pharmaceutical content items”. It is unclear how respective content templates for the plurality of pharmaceutical content items, are determined, based on the corresponding expected engagement values. Is there an algorithm or formula that is being used to determine the respective content templates for the plurality of pharmaceutical content items, based on the corresponding expected engagement values? Are there several respective content templates that are determined for corresponding expected engagement values for the plurality of pharmaceutical content items? Claims 16 and 17 recite similar limitations. Claims 1, 16 and 17 are therefore found to be indefinite, because the resulting claims does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. All dependent claims, namely claims 2-15 and 18-20 are rejected for at least the same reason.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20: Step 1
Claims 1-15 are drawn to a method to synthesize a plurality of pharmaceutical content items for respective user types, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claim 16 is drawn to a non-transitory memory storing one or more programs, which, when executed by one or more processors of a device, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 17-20 is drawn to a device comprising: one or more processors; a non-transitory memory; and one or more programs stored in the non-transitory memory, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Claims 1-20: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recites obtaining a request to synthesize a plurality of pharmaceutical content items for respective user types, wherein the plurality of pharmaceutical content items provides information regarding a pharmaceutical article; determining, for the respective user types, corresponding expected engagement values indicative of expected engagement with the pharmaceutical article; determining, based on the corresponding expected engagement values, respective content templates for the plurality of pharmaceutical content items; and synthesizing the plurality of pharmaceutical content items by populating the respective content templates with information regarding the pharmaceutical article. Claims 16 and 17 recite similar limitations.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing personal behavior by manually following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. But for the recitation of generic computer components, these limitations encompass a user obtaining a request to synthesize a plurality of pharmaceutical content items for respective user types, wherein the plurality of pharmaceutical content items provides information regarding a pharmaceutical article; determining, for the respective user types, corresponding expected engagement values indicative of expected engagement with the pharmaceutical article; determining, based on the corresponding expected engagement values, respective content templates for the plurality of pharmaceutical content items; and synthesizing the plurality of pharmaceutical content items by populating the respective content templates with information regarding the pharmaceutical article. These steps could be carried out manually by a user following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Claims 16 and 17 recite similar limitations.
Claims 2-15 and 18-20 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the recitation of generic computer components, Claims 2 and 18 further define the first and second expected time duration value and determining respective content templates. Claims 3 and 19 further define the first and second expected modality for first and second user type, and determining respective content templates.. Claims 4 and 20 further define the first and second user comprehension values for a first and second user types and determining the respective content templates. Claim 5 further defines the first and second user comprehension values for a first and second levels of prior engagement with pharmaceutical content items that relate to the pharmaceutical domain and determining the respective content templates. Claim 6 further defines the pharmaceutical article is used to treat a medical condition, the corresponding expected engagement values and determining the respective content templates. Claim 7 further defines the pharmaceutical article is a first pharmaceutical drug, the corresponding expected engagement values and determining the respective content templates. Claim 8 further defines determining the respective content templates. Claims 9-14 further defines synthesizing the plurality of pharmaceutical content items. Claim 15 further defines obtaining the request. Therefore, these claims are similarly drawn to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 1-20: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas along with insignificant, extra-solution data gathering activity, and adding limitations similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a device including a non-transitory memory and a processor coupled with the non-transitory memory. Claim 16 recites additional elements of non-transitory memory storing one or more programs, executed by one or more processors of a device. Claim 17 recites additional elements of a device comprising one or more processors, a non-transitory memory, and one or more programs stored in the non-transitory memory, executed by the one or more processors.
Claims 1-20, directly or indirectly, recite the following generic computer components: “non-transitory memory and a processor coupled with the non-transitory memory,“ “a processor,” “non-transitory memory storing one or more programs, executed by one or more processors of a device,” and “one or more processors, a non-transitory memory, and one or more programs stored in the non-transitory memory, executed by the one or more processors” which are similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. The written description discloses that the recited computer components encompass generic components including “In accordance with some implementations, a device includes one or more processors, a non-transitory memory, and one or more programs. In some implementations, the one or more programs are stored in the non-transitory memory and are executed by the one or more processors” (see at least Paragraph [0012]), and “In some implementations, the method 300 is performed by processing logic, including hardware, firmware, software, or a combination thereof. In some implementations, the method 300 is performed by a processor executing code stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium (e.g., a memory) “ (see at least Paragraph [0070]). See MPEP 2106.05 (h). As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1-20: Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). As explained above, the generic computer components are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception.
Receiving and transmitting data over a network (i.e. receiving and communicating data or signals) has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of a general-purpose computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result has also been found to be insufficient to show an improvement to technology, (see MPEP 2106.05(a) and TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48).
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, the high-level recitation of an output of results also fails to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The most remarkable prior art of record is as follows:
Marsh: U.S. Patent US 10,991,009 B2, Methods And Apparatus For Context-Specific Content Delivery
Krishna: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2018/0276184 A1, Automatically Generating Documents
Eifert et al.: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2020/0226164 A1, Processing Documents In Content Repositories To Generate Personalized Treatment Guidelines
Scalici: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2013/0262196 A1, Consolidated Presentation Of Pharmaceutical Information From Multiple Sources
Rolls et al.: WIPO Patent Application Publication WO 2021/137238 A1, Generation Of Patient-Specific Context
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joy Chng whose telephone number is 571.270.7897. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, JASON DUNHAM can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Joy Chng/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights