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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 6/12/2026 in which claims 1, 6, 8, 11, 13-16, and 20 have been amended. Thus, the claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
The examiner for this application has changed. Please indicate Examiner Rajesh Khattar as the examiner of record in all future correspondence.
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 of updating configuration of the healthcare facility based on probability of transmission of a disease without significantly more.
For 101 analysis, Examiner has identified claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention described in independent claims 1, 13, and 16.
Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 recites a series of steps, e.g., accessing a first set of provider characteristics for a first healthcare provider; accessing a first set of community characteristics for a first community comprising a plurality of individuals; generating a first probability of transmission, with respect to a first disease, using a first machine learning model corresponding to the first disease and based on processing the first set of provider characteristics and the first set of community characteristics using the first machine learning model, wherein the first probability of transmission indicates a probability that the first healthcare provider will contract the first disease if the first healthcare provider is assigned to a first healthcare facility in the first community; determining a current configuration of the first healthcare facility with respect to the first disease; and generating an updated configuration for the first healthcare facility with respect to the first disease based on the first probability of transmission. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitation) describe the abstract idea of updating configuration of the healthcare facility based on probability of transmission of a disease, which correspond to a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The additional element of a first machine learning model system does not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a first machine learning model result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional element of a first machine learning model is recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention by applying the exception using a generic computer element (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional element does not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional element of a first machine learning model is recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional element when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to other independent claims 13 and 16 and hence the claims 13 and 16 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-15, and 17-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 13, and 16, thus correspond to a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. Dependent claims 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, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Examiner withdraws 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claims 1-20 in view of the argument/amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed dated 1/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that under Step 2A, the amended claims do not recite a judicial exception, at all, and are therefore patent eligible.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the amended claim still recites an abstract idea as explained above in this office action. The claim recites an abstract idea of updating configuration of the healthcare facility based on probability of transmission of a disease which corresponds to a certain method of organizing human activity. The additional elements do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea and thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Prong two of step 2A, Applicant states that the claims are eligible because they ”reflect[] an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,” and further “integrate” the alleged “judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it simply applies the abstract idea without providing any technical improvement. The specification does not describe any technical problem to which a technical solution is required and the claim simply describes the additional elements to be present as a tool to apply the abstract idea without providing any technical improvement. In the absence of a technical improvement, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application but instead applies the abstract idea. The improvement described in the specification relates to improvement to an abstract idea. For example, Applicant argues that the specification discloses the transmission prediction system may “generate a wide variety of suggested modifications based on the transmission predictions, enabling substantially improved outcomes for patients as well as more efficient allocations of resources. Similarly, the system may generate updated configurations such as “new or changed protocols, such as transmission prevention measure, “additional sterilization or cleaning techniques,” “new or changed transmission detection procedures,” and the like. These are improvements to an abstract idea and not technical in nature. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding August Memorandum, Examiner notes that the claim clearly recites an abstract idea and the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
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 RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights