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
In the reply filed 2026 June 10 the following changes have been made: amendments to claims 1, 4, and 11. Claim 7 has been canceled.
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
While acknowledgement is made if a claim for foreign priority, certified copies of foreign priority documents have not been received as required by 37 CFR 1.55. As a result applicant is not entitled to the filing date of the Indian application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 11 recites the following:
“determining… a decision-making subsystem”
“generating… a survey generation subsystem”
“receiving… a user interaction subsystem”
“processing… a data processing subsystem”
“connecting… a remote assistant subsystem”
“allowing … a remote test triggering subsystem”
Claim 12 recites the following:
“obtaining … a consent data obtaining subsystem”
which are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ),
sixth paragraph. The limitations create a rebuttable presumption that the claim elements are to be treated under § 112(f) based on the use of the word “means” or generic place holder (underlined) with functional language (in italics). The presumption is not rebutted because the limitations do not recite sufficient structure in the claim to perform the functions. When § 112(f) is invoked the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations is restricted to the structure in the disclosure and its equivalents.
the following functional claim limitations:
Of claim 11 recites the following:
“receiving… a user interaction subsystem”
Of claim 12 recites the following:
“obtaining … a consent data obtaining subsystem”
recite non-specialized computer functions that can be accomplished by any general
purpose computer (e.g., any general purpose computer can receive, convert, and/or
display data, etc.), and as such an algorithm is not required to be described in the
specification to support an adequate disclosure of the limitations.
However, the following functional claim limitations:
Of claim 11 recites the following:
“determining… a decision-making subsystem”
“generating… a survey generation subsystem”
“processing… a data processing subsystem”
“connecting… a remote assistant subsystem”
“allowing … a remote test triggering subsystem”
recite specialized computer functions. A function performed by a programmed
computer requires both the computer and the algorithm that causes the computer to
perform the function. As such, a disclosure of an algorithm to perform these functions and to transform a general purpose computer into a programmed computer is required. Examiner notes that the specification is not clear in providing the specific algorithm and corresponding structure for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation of the function of the sorting mechanism.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s
interpretation of the corresponding structure/algorithm, applicant must identify the
corresponding structure/algorithm with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the
claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of
Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 2.
Claims 11-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim elements “a decision-making subsystem”, “a survey generation subsystem”, “a data processing subsystem”, “a remote assistant subsystem”, and “a remote test triggering subsystem” are limitations that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Programmed computer functions require a computer programmed with an “algorithm” to perform the function. Because “a decision-making subsystem”, “a survey generation subsystem”, “a data processing subsystem”, “a remote assistant subsystem”, and “a remote test triggering subsystem” relate to specific functions that must be performed by a special purpose computer, the supporting specification must specifically identify the structure (including an algorithm for specialized functions) that performs the claimed functions of the above-mentioned claim elements.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the
invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims contain the recitation of “a decision-making subsystem”, “a survey generation subsystem”, “a data processing subsystem”, “a remote assistant subsystem”, and “a remote test triggering subsystem.” However, applicant’s specification describes no particular manner in how exactly the decision-making subsystem determines a type of data to be collected, how a survey generation subsystem generates one or more queries, how the data processing subsystem processes data, how the remote assistant subsystem connects the one or more users with a healthcare professional, and how the remote test triggering subsystem allows the healthcare professional to trigger a medical screening test. MPEP 2161.01 notes, “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.” Accordingly, a rejection for lack of written description is necessary.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 11 contain the recitation “predicting, by the supervised artificial intelligence and machine learning model, a medical screening test for execution by the health kiosk unit.” Applicant’s recitation of predicting a medical screening test for execution by the health kiosk unit by the supervised artificial intelligence and machine learning model appears to constitute new matter. MPEP 2163 notes, “The proscription against the introduction of new matter in a patent application (35 U.S.C. 132 and 251) serves to prevent an applicant from adding information that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981); see also MPEP §§ 2163.06 through 2163.07 for a more detailed discussion of the written description requirement and its relationship to new matter.” Accordingly, a rejection for addition of new matter is necessary. Dependent claims 2-6, 8-10, and 12 inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a machine (claims 1-6 and 8-10) and a process (claims 11-12).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites steps of
a health kiosk unit comprises:
one or more embedded sensors configured to generate sensor data;
a plurality of electrocardiogram (ECG) leads operatively positioned at diverse places in the health kiosk unit, configured to generate cardiac electrical activity data of the one or more users associated with a user profile;
an adjustable seat configured to accommodate physically challenged
users and users of varying heights to maintain contact between the plurality of
electrocardiogram (ECG) leads and the one or more users for cardiac electrical
activity data collection;
one or more server units operatively connected to the health kiosk unit via a communication network;
one or more hardware processors operatively connected to the one or more server units;
a data repository unit operatively coupled to the one or more hardware processors, wherein the data repository unit comprises a plurality of subsystems in form of programmable instructions executable by the one or more hardware processors, wherein the plurality of subsystems comprise:
a decision-making subsystem configured with computer-implemented intelligent models to determine a type of data to be collected from the one or more users based on the user profile, wherein the computer-implemented intelligent models comprise a supervised artificial intelligence and machine learning model configured to: learn patterns from past interactions associated with one or more user profiles, adapt a data collection strategy based on changing user profiles, and predict a medical screening test for execution by the health kiosk unit;
a survey generation subsystem configured to generate one or more queries for obtaining first data based on the determined type of data to be collected from the one or more users, wherein the one or more queries are dynamically generated based on the one or more user's historical health data and ongoing health conditions;
a user interaction subsystem configured to receive the first data from the one or more users associated with the user profile through a user interface for initiating personalised health-related interactions within the health kiosk system;
a data processing subsystem configured to process at least one of the: sensor data, cardiac electrical activity data and the first data for determining the one or more parameters of the one or more users associated with the user profile;
a remote assistant subsystem configured to connect the one or more users with a healthcare professional based on the one or more parameters for virtual assistance; and
a remote test triggering subsystem configured to allow the healthcare professional to trigger a medical screening test on the one or more users interacted with the health kiosk unit for managing the health of the one or more users based on dynamic extraction of the one or more parameters, wherein the remote test triggering subsystem securely transmits a request identifying the medical screening test to the health kiosk unit and activates one or more sensors and diagnostic tools in the health kiosk unit to perform the medical screening test in real time.
Claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 1 except for the recitation of generic computer components and an adjustable seat.
These steps for managing health of users with a health kiosk system, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the italicized portions from managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people through organizing the activity around managing the health of the one or more users. This could be analogized to considering historical usage information while inputting data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements non-italicized portions identified above for claims 1 and 11, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as
recitation of a health kiosk unit comprises: one or more embedded sensors configured to generate sensor data; one or more server units operatively connected to the health kiosk unit via a communication network; one or more hardware processors operatively connected to the one or more server units; a data repository unit operatively coupled to the one or more hardware processors, wherein the data repository unit comprises a plurality of subsystems in form of programmable instructions executable by the one or more hardware processors; a decision-making subsystem; a supervised artificial intelligence and machine learning model; a survey generation subsystem; a user interaction subsystem; within the health kiosk system; a data processing subsystem; a remote assistant subsystem; a remote test triggering subsystem; and, activates one or more sensors and diagnostic tools in the health kiosk unit amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of receive the first data from the one or more users associated with the user profile; and, wherein the remote test triggering subsystem securely transmits a request identifying the medical screening test to the health kiosk unit amounts to mere data gathering and output since it does not add meaningful limitations to the receiving and transmitting actions performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as recitation of a plurality of electrocardiogram (ECG) leads operatively positioned at diverse places in the health kiosk unit, configured to generate cardiac electrical activity data of the one or more users associated with a user profile; and, an adjustable seat configured to accommodate physically challenged users and users of varying heights to maintain contact between the plurality of electrocardiogram (ECG) leads. As can be seen, employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not make the claim patent eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Each of the above additional elements therefore only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computer components or other machines within their ordinary capacity, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the above claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) do 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, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception in particular fields such as recitation of a health kiosk unit comprises: one or more embedded sensors configured to generate sensor data; one or more server units operatively connected to the health kiosk unit via a communication network; one or more hardware processors operatively connected to the one or more server units; a data repository unit operatively coupled to the one or more hardware processors, wherein the data repository unit comprises a plurality of subsystems in form of programmable instructions executable by the one or more hardware processors, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f); such as recitation of a decision-making subsystem; a supervised artificial intelligence and machine learning model; a survey generation subsystem; a user interaction subsystem; within the health kiosk system; a data processing subsystem; a remote assistant subsystem; a remote test triggering subsystem; and, activates one or more sensors and diagnostic tools in the health kiosk unit, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), MPEP 2106.05(f);
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as recitation of receive the first data from the one or more users associated with the user profile; and, wherein the remote test triggering subsystem securely transmits a request identifying the medical screening test to the health kiosk unit, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use such as recitation of a plurality of electrocardiogram (ECG) leads operatively positioned at diverse places in the health kiosk unit, configured to generate cardiac electrical activity data of the one or more users associated with a user profile; and, an adjustable seat configured to accommodate physically challenged users and users of varying heights to maintain contact between the plurality of electrocardiogram (ECG) leads; e.g., simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., MPEP 2105.05(h)
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2-6, 8-10, and 12 reciting particular aspects for managing health of users with a health kiosk system such as
[Claims 2 & 12] wherein the plurality of subsystems comprise a consent data obtaining subsystem,
the consent data obtaining subsystem configured to obtain consent data from the one or more users to recommend optimised preferences,
the consent data enable the one or more users to manage and optimise data-sharing preferences for at least one of: telemedicine, research, and analysis;
[Claim 3] wherein the one or more embedded sensors comprise at least one of blood pressure sensors, body composition analysis sensors, temperature sensors, and oxygen saturation sensors;
[Claim 4] wherein the plurality of electrocardiogram (ECG) leads is one of: three leads, six leads, and twelve leads operatively integrated into the health kiosk unit at the diverse places;
[Claim 5] wherein the six leads of the plurality of electrocardiogram (ECG) leads positioned at diverse places comprise a left-palm placement, right-palm placement, left-hand wrist placement, right-hand wrist placement, left ankles placement, and right ankles placement;
[Claim 6] wherein the computer-implemented intelligent models comprises at least one of a: self-aware artificial intelligence model, large language model, supervised artificial intelligence and machine learning model, unsupervised artificial intelligence and machine learning model, deep learning model, simple and multimodal analytics including at least one of: regression models, Gaussian Mixture Models (GMMs), and K-Nearest Neighbors Algorithm models;
[Claim 8] wherein the first data comprises at least one of: biographical information, health history data, user preferences, survey responses, choice selections for the consent data, and medical records;
[Claim 9] wherein the one or more parameters comprises at least one of a: blood pressure, body composition, body temperature, electrocardiogram (ECG) data, weight and height measurements, optical acuities data, electroencephalogram, Lung function test, urine test, oxygen saturation, Body Mass Index (BMI), blood glucose, and lipid profile;
[Claim 10] wherein the remote assistant subsystem configured with at least one of: audio conferencing capabilities and video conferencing capabilities for activating at least one of a: camera, and microphone embedded in the health kiosk unit;
these italicized portions are methods of organizing human activity since they merely describe types of data and determinations that can be performed by humans.
Step 2A Prong 2
Dependent claims 2-6, 10, and 12 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (the additional limitations in claims 2 & 12 (wherein the plurality of subsystems comprise a consent data obtaining subsystem); claim 3 (wherein the one or more embedded sensors comprise at least one of blood pressure sensors, body composition analysis sensors, temperature sensors, and oxygen saturation sensors); claim 4 (wherein the plurality of electrocardiogram (ECG) leads is one of: three leads, six leads, and twelve leads operatively integrated into the health kiosk unit at the diverse places); claim 5 (six leads of the plurality of electrocardiogram (ECG) leads); claim 6 (wherein the computer-implemented intelligent models comprises at least one of a: self-aware artificial intelligence model, large language model, supervised artificial intelligence and machine learning model, unsupervised artificial intelligence and machine learning model, deep learning model, simple and multimodal analytics including at least one of: regression models, Gaussian Mixture Models (GMMs), and K-Nearest Neighbors Algorithm models); and, claim 10 (wherein the remote assistant subsystem configured with at least one of: audio conferencing capabilities and video conferencing capabilities for activating at least one of a: camera, and microphone embedded in the health kiosk unit) amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and, claims 2 & 12 (obtain consent data from the one or more users) amounts to mere data gathering since it does not add meaningful limitations to the receiving action performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Dependent claims 2-3, 10, and 12 recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f). Dependent claims 4-6 recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, see [0046] which discloses off-the-shelf processors, [0054] which discloses off-the-shelf memory types, [0064] which discloses off-the-shelf devices, and [0055] which discloses off-the-shelf LLMs. Dependent claims 2 & 12 recite additional subject matter which amounts to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). There is no indication that these additional elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Additionally, it is evident that the present claims monopolizes the judicial exception; “monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (quoting Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)).
Therefore, in consideration of all the facts, the present invention is clearly not a patent-eligible invention under USC 101. Additionally, it is evident that the present claims monopolizes the fundamental concept of remote health triage system, restricting further innovation in this area without offering a specific, technical improvement to how the computer actually operates; “monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (quoting Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2026 June 10 have been considered but are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the priority, applicant states that steps have been initiated to make the certified copy of the Indian application available to the USPTO via WIPO, and that no English translation is required since the Indian application was filed in the English language. Applicant requests that examiner maintain the priority pending submission.
While examiner understands that steps are being taken by the applicant and that no English translation is required, the fact remains that there is no certified priority document on file from the applicant. Thus, examiner will not maintain priority, and the applicant is not entitled to the priority date of the Indian application.
Regarding the claim objection, applicant has amended claim 4 to address the informality. Therefore, the claim objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the USC 112(a) & 112(b), applicant points out limitations and asserts that claim 1 recites specific operational functionality and processing logic for the claimed subsystems, thereby providing sufficient structure for the recited programmed computer functions and further demonstrating possession of the claimed operational techniques at the time of filing. Applicant requests the USC 112(a) and USC 112(b) be withdrawn.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. While examiner has not presently rejected claim 1 under the argued 112(a) & 112(b) rejections for recitation of structure as pointed out by the applicant, examiner asserts that claim 1 is rejected under a new 112(a) rejection for reciting new matter. Additionally, for claim 11, there is no specific operational functionality nor even structure claimed. The operations of the subsystems pointed out by the applicant are instead result-focused limitations that do not delineate how the functions are actually carried out by the computer. Therefore, the USC 112(a) rejections are maintained for claims 1-12 and the USC 112(b) rejection is maintained for claims 11-12.
Regarding the USC 101 rejection, applicant argues on pages 11 to 13 that the office characterizes the claims at a high level of abstraction while ignoring the specific technological operations expressly recited in the amended claims. Applicant asserts that the amended claims are not directed to mere healthcare management or generalized healthcare interactions, but instead recite a specific machine-learning-based physiological acquisition and diagnostic execution architecture. Applicant lists four limitations arguing that these limitations are not mental processes and cannot practically be performed in the human mind since the claims recite specific machine learning operations and machine-controlled physiological acquisition architectures. Applicant states that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. Examiner asserts the claims were not rejected under the mental process grouping, and still recite organizing human activity as it involves managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people; specifically, administrative tasks which have historically been performed by medical staff. The claimed system clearly relates to managing health of one or more users through data collection which is a method of organizing human activity or a business method. The applicant seems to stretch the claim limitations under USC 101 to argue that the claims are not abstract. Examiner points to the USPTO October 2019 Guidance (also incorporated in MPEP 2106) which states that claims can recite an abstract idea even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The USPTO October 2019 Guidance is clear in that the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite an abstract idea even though the limitations may not be entirely performed by humans. The recitation of real-time adds no value to the claim and is relative especially since neither the specification nor the claims define or put any sort of constraints on time for processing. Examiner points out that the computers in the claims are not used in a specific, inventive way. The claims are very outcome-focused and do not detail how each of the outcomes are reached. For instance, the applicant’s generic claim doesn’t delineate the steps of how each of the determining, generating, receiving, processing, connecting, etc. steps are specifically done; there is no clarity on the actual computer processing or how the computer is programmed to achieve the results in a non-abstract way different from how humans handle data. The present artificial intelligence and machine learning model claimed is a black box algorithm with no clarity on the actual computer processing or how the computer is programmed to achieve the results in a non-abstract way different from how humans analyze/process data. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that applicant’s invention is directed to judicial exception as also confirmed by at least one subject matter expert at the USPTO. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to ‘implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer’, it cannot save OIP's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted).
On page 14 the applicant argues that the claims integrate any judicial exception into a practical application because the claims recite a specialized health kiosk architecture. Applicant asserts that the recited limitations impose meaningful technological constraints on how remote physiological monitoring and medical screening operations are performed. Applicant states that the amended claims improve the technical field of remote physiological monitoring and medical screening architectures. Applicant points out that USPTO eligibility guidance recognizes that claims improving machine operations, physiological monitoring systems, sensor-controlled architectures, and computer-controlled technical processes are integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.05(a).
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. Examiner asserts while the applicant has tried to add technical amendments, the amendments do not do much to advance prosecution because the present specification provides a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The MPEP provides that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field can signal eligibility, see MPEP 2106.05(a), and provides examples of improvements to computer functionality, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), and improvements to any other technology of technical field, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool”. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification' s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. Unlike Enfish, the instant claimed invention appears to improve upon a judicial exception rather than a problem in the software arts. Rather than improving a computer's algorithm (i.e., solving a technically based problem), the claimed invention purports to solve the non-technological problems of older populations and those not comfortable with the digital tools; and, the conventional requirement of user's self-placement of the ECG devices which may lead to inaccuracies and hinder effectiveness ([0004] of specification) by using computers to automate management of the health of one or more users. In other words, one of the main/glaring issues with the present invention is that the problems solved by the applicant are not technological problems. All the applicant is doing is applying known technology for their intended benefit(s) to a new data environment and calling it an improvement (see Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., Case No.18-2239 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020).
The examiner asserts the following facts which the applicant will not be able to dispute:
1) the invention does NOT involve a novel algorithm or data structure that significantly improves the computer's functionality,
2) the invention does NOT involve a new hardware component or configuration that works with the computer to achieve a specific technical benefit, and
3) the computer is NOT used in a completely new way demonstrating a significant technical advancement.
It is evident from the specification and claims that the applicant is not improving computer technology, and instead providing an improvement to the abstract idea. An improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to computer technology. Thus, examiner does not see how the present claims improve the functioning of a computer or provide improvements to any other technology or technical field. The claimed invention appears similar to the example of improvements that are insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality such as arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)(viii). The broad claims are lacking concrete limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner points out that the claimed limitations have no indication in the specification that the operations recited invoke any inventive programming, require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (fed Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”). Most importantly, in DDR Holdings & unlike the present claims, the claims at issue specified how interactions with the Internet were manipulated to yield a desired result—a result that overrode the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink. 773 F.3d at 1258; 113 USPQ2d at 1106. The examiner also points out that there is no indication in the specification that the claimed invention affects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner points to the recitation of artificial intelligence and machine learning in the claim(s) as generic. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208 223 (2014). Applicant does not and cannot contend they invented the concept of machine learning, nor does the specification disclose any new machine learning technique. In fact, the applicant’s specification [0014] recognizes known machine learning models in the art. The alleged improvement of using a supervised artificial intelligence and machine learning model lies in the abstract idea itself, not to any technological improvement nor to any improvement to the functioning of a computer. See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The fact pattern of the applicant’s claims is congruent to the Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 2025 U.S.P.Q.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 2025) decision by the Federal Circuit. Just like in Recentive, the present claims do not delineate steps through which the machine learning technology achieves an improvement. See, e.g., IBM v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding abstract a claim that "d[id] not sufficiently describe how to achieve [its stated] results in a non-abstract way," because "[s]uch functional claim language, without more, is insufficient for patentability under our law." (quoting Two-Way Media Ltd v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017))); see also Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (similar); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (similar). Claiming a mere concept or functional result without disclosing the implementation details does not overcome USC 101. Applying an established technique to a new field or data set is insufficient for patent eligibility. To show an involvement of a computer assists in improving technology, the claims must recite details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems the courts found that the claims were “directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality…” (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The present invention clearly does not meet the condition set forth by the courts and thus is not integrated into a practical application.
On pages 15 to 16 the applicant argues that for Step 2B the that the office has not has not established that it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to use the claimed ordered combination with evidence. Applicant asserts that the claims represent a specialized architecture and not generic computer implementation of healthcare-management concepts. Applicant states that the dependent claims remain patent eligible by the virtue of their dependency on the amended independent claims and requests withdrawal of the USC 101 rejection.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. Examiner points out that the apply it, well-understood, routine, & conventional, and generally link analysis was performed under Step 2B, with court case citations, which didn’t result in the claim being eligible under USC 101. In comparison to Bascom, examiner points out that Bascom is not similar to the present application because Bascom claimed a technical improvement in the art i.e., a technology-based solution to filter content on the internet while the present application is not presenting an improvement (as indicated above). There is nothing specialized about using off-the-shelf computers and machine learning on new data. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). The applicant has not demonstrated that their invention is inventive. There is no justification to withdraw the USC 101 for the independent claims as well as their respective dependent claims. Therefore, the USC 101 rejection is strongly maintained.
Prior Art Cited but Not Relied Upon
Patil, D., Mhatre, A., Chavre, S., & Paras, T. (2025). AI-ASSISTED TELEMEDICINE KIOSK FOR RURAL INDIA. JOURNAL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE (ISSN NO: 1549-3636) VOLUME, 18.
This reference is relevant because it discloses an AI-assisted healthcare kiosk.
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 WINSTON FURTADO whose telephone number is (571)272-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM EST.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/WINSTON R FURTADO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights