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 .
The following is a non-final, first office action on the merits, in response to application filed 3/10/2025. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for a provisional application filed on 4/19/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/21/2025 follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “The medical testing …..of claim Error!....” appear to have typos.
Claim 12 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because of missing dependency since it is a dependent claim. Accordingly, claim 12 has not been further treated on the merits.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 there for, 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, regardless of a system/apparatus, a method, or a product claim.
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, “an idea of itself”, “mental process” which have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in new 101 memos of the subject matter eligibility in here (https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility) including 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because It/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
Independent claim 11 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to multiple abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, “an idea of itself”, and “Mental process”.
Claim 11, Steps of,
receiving, by a processor, a patient data related to the patient, the patient data comprising a plurality of symptoms experienced by the patient and a patient personal data related to personal information and historical medical data of the patient;
evaluating, by the processor, the patient data to identify a plurality of diseases associated with one or more symptoms of the plurality of symptoms.
determining, by the processor, with reference to stored data related to the plurality of point-of-care tests available to be administered remotely from the testing facilities, whether a point-of-care test is available for each disease of the plurality of diseases.
in response to determining the point-of-care test is available for at least one disease of the plurality of diseases, evaluating, by the processor, the patient personal data to determine whether the patient is suitable for the point-of-care test and automatically acquiring, via a network, the point-of-care test for the patient when the patient is determined suitable for the point-of-care test;
receiving, by the processor via a result interface, a test result from each point-of-care test administered to the patient; and
evaluating the test result from each point-of-care test to offer a diagnostic recommendation for the patient.
fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because the instant claims recite “receiving data, evaluating data, determining availability of the point-of-care test“ which are human activities and/or interactions and therefore, certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer.
In addition, claim 11, steps mentioned above also falls within the abstract
“Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since these limitation covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by paper and pen. For example,
observe/receive a patient’s data/test result, can observe/evaluate/determine the patient data/availability of a point-of-care test/test result.
Further, steps of (“receiving….”) are considered as “insignificant extra-solution activity” to the judicial exception since they are merely receiving/collecting/providing data/data.
Independent claim 11, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements (by a processor) that are not significant more than the abstract ideas. Other than simply reciting “by a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, and is simply organized information through human activity or merely mental tasks, and is part of, or a related, judicial exception and does not meaningfully limit the application of the identified judicial exception, and as such does not constitute significantly more.
There is no specificity regarding any technology, just broadly, execute the programming instructions to collect/receive data, evaluate/determine data. The steps are mainly receiving data, evaluating data, and determining data. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor improvement to the functioning of the computer itself and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Independent claim 11, (step 2B):
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. The additional element (by a processor) is recited at a high level of generality and add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
In light of the specification, ([33, 43-46, 51]), the components are merely recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic computer/device components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to receive/transmit/display information does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 11).
According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward
information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (evidence required by Berkeimer memo). Further, according to Berkheimer memo 04/19/2018, section III.A.1, “A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)”.
Dependent claims 12-20, are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 11 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 12-20 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 1: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent system/apparatus claim 1 is also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claim(s) 11.
Further, the components (i.e., a processor, a database, a system) described in independent claims 1, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. Similarly, as it relates to the computer system claims, the limitations appear to be performed by a generic computing system/device. These components are merely recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to receive/access/create/generate /transmit/send/display information over communication network/internet does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 11).
According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward
information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (evidence required by Berkeimer memo). Further, according to Berkheimer memo 04/19/2018, section III.A.1, “A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)”.
Applicant’s Specification, [33, 43-46, 51] indicates a general-purpose/generic computer perform the instant steps and demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the information processing device (a processor/a memory/a computer) in any computing implementation. Thus, evidence has been provided to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to Berkheimer memo. Therefore, for the above-mentioned reasons, viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above steps do not amount to significantly more/do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-10, are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1, without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Viewed as a whole, the claims (1-20) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, the claims do NOT recite limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, the claimed invention does not provide 'significantly more' than the abstract idea, and is non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art Rejection
Independent claims 1,11, recites a combination of limitations that has Not been found as define over prior art of record (the combination of Macoviak (US 2025/0378923), Macoviak et al. (US 2016/0055307), Macoviak (US 2021/0043295), Macviak (US 2015/0142466), Ferro et al. (US 2022/0310253), Nienstedt et al. (US 2023/0268070), Razami et al. (US 2013/0226601),
which was directed towards the entirety of the claimed subject matter and was the best reference known to one of ordinary skill in the art to address the instant claims, and
NPL1--Verma N, Buch B, Pandya RS, Taralekar R, Masand I, Rangparia H, Katira JM, Acharya S. Evaluation and significance of a digital assistant for patient history-taking and physical examination in telemedicine. Oxf Open Digit Health. 2024 Feb 2;2:oqae008. doi: 10.1093/oodh/oqae008. PMID: 40230975; PMCID: PMC11932404.
NPL2--Aguas M, Del Hoyo J, Faubel R, Muñoz D, Domínguez D, Bastida G, Navarro B, Barrios A, Valdivieso B, Correcher M, Nos P. A Web-Based Telemanagement System for Patients With Complex Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2018 Dec 21;7(12):e190. doi: 10.2196/resprot.9639. PMID: 30578197; PMCID: PMC6320427.
NPL3--Khanji C, Schnitzer ME, Bareil C, Perreault S, Lalonde L. Concordance of care processes between medical records and patient self-administered questionnaires. BMC Fam Pract. 2019 Jul 3;20(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s12875-019-0979-7. PMID: 31269902; PMCID: PMC6607524. (Year: 2019)
NPL4--Palacholla RS, Fischer NC, Agboola S, Nikolova-Simons M, Odametey S, Golas SB, Op den Buijs J, Schertzer L, Kvedar J, Jethwani K. Evaluating the Impact of a Web-Based Risk Assessment System (CareSage) and Tailored Interventions on Health Care Utilization: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2018 May 9;7(5):e10045. doi: 10.2196/10045. PMID: 29743156; PMCID: PMC5966651.
All fail to teach all the recited claimed features.
However, independent claims 1, 11 and their dependency are rejected under Alice 101 rejection as above.
Allowable Subject Matter
As to the prior art rejections, in interpreting the claims, considering the specification, upon further search and consideration, and for the reasons presented by claims, the Examiner finds claim 1-20 is allowable subject to outstanding Alice 101 rejections and claim objection.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with, and pending remedy to outstanding issues cited above. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The prior art made of record and relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Amarasingham et al. (US 2015/0213217, described analyzing the clinical and non-clinical data, including captured images and audio, associated with the at least one patient, and determining a risk score and at least one medical condition associated with the patient).
Rosenfeld et al. (US 2012/0284053, teaches receiving monitored data elements of geographically dispersed hospitalized patients at the remote command center and stored in the datastore. A smart alert module generates and applies patient specific rules to data elements).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN M LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5489. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30am--5pm. Fax is 571-270-6489.
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, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached on 571-272-6702. 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 Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center 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.
/SUN M LI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights