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 02/17/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
IDS
The Applicant has submitted a large number of references consisting of over 1000 total pages. In order for the Examiner to properly determine patentability over prior art submitted, it is requested that the Applicant explain the significance of each reference or highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to Applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. Specifically, the Applicant is requested to point out to the Examiner which references teach using artificial intelligence and machine learning to predict a probability of an undesired medical event occurring during a treatment plan.
It is desirable to avoid the submission of long list of documents. The Examiner hereby requests elimination of clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D.Fla.1972), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. Denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 13-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,230,382.
The claims recite very similar limitations, except for the independent claims, where receiving a plurality of risk factors associated with medical outcomes for a user is omitted in the instant pending application. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant pending application omit certain steps of claims 1-11 and 13-23 in patent 12,230,382 because it would have been obvious to omit certain steps with the motivation of providing systems and methods for predicting a probability of an undesired medical event occurring during a treatment plan.
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 1-12 are drawn to a computer-implemented system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claim 13-20 is drawn to a method for operating an electromechanical machine, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process).
Claims 1-20: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recites implement a treatment plan while the electromechanical machine is being manipulated by a user, determining, based on a set of risk factors and measurement information associated with the user, one or more individual probabilities, wherein each of the set of risk factors is associated with one or more medical events or outcomes for a user and the one or more individual probabilities are associated with one or more likelihoods that one or more medical events or outcomes will occur while the electromechanical machine is being manipulated by the user, and performing, based on the one or more individual probabilities, one or more corrective actions associated with the one or more medical events or outcomes, wherein the one or more corrective actions comprise controlling the electromechanical machine. Claim 13 recites 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 implementing a treatment plan while the electromechanical machine is being manipulated by a user, determining, based on a set of risk factors and measurement information associated with the user, one or more individual probabilities, wherein each of the set of risk factors is associated with one or more medical events or outcomes for a user and the one or more individual probabilities are associated with one or more likelihoods that one or more medical events or outcomes will occur while the electromechanical machine is being manipulated by the user, and performing, based on the one or more individual probabilities, one or more corrective actions associated with the one or more medical events or outcomes, wherein the one or more corrective actions comprise controlling the electromechanical machine. 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. Claim 13 recite similar limitations.
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Claims 2 and 14 further define the performing one or more corrective actions. Claims 3 and 15 further define determining a union of probabilities. Claims 4 and 16 further define executing a risk factor model. Claims 5 and 17 further define executing a probability model. Claims 6 and 18 further define executing a corrective action model. Claims 7 and 19 further define determining the one or more individual probabilities. Claim 8 further defines configuring based on the plurality of risk factors, to generate the various ranges of values. Claim 9 further defines to perform the one or more corrective actions. Claim 10 further defines the message includes a recommendation. Claim 11 further defines transmitting the message. Claims 12 and 20 further define one or more outcomes. 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 that the computer-implemented method steps are performed by a processing device, and the user using the electromechanical machine. Claim 13 recites additional elements of a processing device performing the method steps, and the user using the electromechanical machine.
Claims 1-20, directly or indirectly, recite the following generic computer components: “computer-implemented system,” and “processing device for performing the method steps” 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 “The method 800 is performed by processing logic that may include hardware (circuitry, dedicated logic, etc.), software (such as is run on a general-purpose computer system or a dedicated machine), or a combination of both. The method 800 and/or each of its individual functions, routines, other methods, scripts, subroutines, or operations may be performed by one or more processors of a computing device“ (see at least Paragraph [0143]), “. The computer system may be a personal computer (PC), a tablet computer, a wearable (e.g., wristband), a set-top box (STB), a personal Digital Assistant (PDA), a mobile phone, a camera, a video camera, an Internet of Things (IoT) device, or any device capable of executing a set of instructions (sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that device” (see at least Paragraph [0162]) and “Processing device 1102 represents one or more general-purpose processing devices such as a microprocessor, central processing unit, or the like” (see at least Paragraph [0163]). Although the additional elements limits the identified judicial exceptions, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. 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 and machine learning 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:
Quy: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2014/0207264 A1
Belt et al.: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2016/0117471 A1
Constantin et al.: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2019/0251456 A1
Davis et al.: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2017/0220751 A1
Rajasenan: U.S. Patent U.S. 8,515,777 B1
Cox et al.: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2017/0286621 A1
Nachenberg et al.: U.S. Patent U.S. 10,581,896 B2
Moyle et al.: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2016/0373477 A1
Kantoch, Recognition of Sedentary Behavior by Machine Learning Analysis of Wearable Sensors during Activities of Daily Living for Telemedical Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk, 24 September 2018, Sensor Applications In Medical Monitoring And Assistive Devices 18(10), 3219, https://doi.org/10.3390/s1
Robben et al., Delta Features From Ambient Sensor Data are Good Predictors of Change in Functional Health, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 986-993, July 2017, doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2016.2593980
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