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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The pending claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Line 1 recites “Presented herein are systems and methods” is a phrase that can be implied and not clear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, a period is needed on the end of claim limitation.
Claim 11, it is suggested to have “memory stores instructions, the instructions is executed by one or more processors to perform”.
Because “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2114.II.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 3, recites the limitation "a condition in the user". The claim limitation is not clear. Therefore, it is indefinite.
Similar problem exists in claim 11.
Claim 1, line 11, recites the limitation "aggregating, by the server, on the database, data associated with the user, the first data structure, and the second data structure". The claim limitation “aggregating … on the database” is not clear. Therefore, it is indefinite.
Similar problem exists in claim 11.
Appropriate clarification and 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 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 non-statutory subject matter 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.
Under the 2019 PEG, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A prong 1), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2). If an abstract idea is present in the claim without integration into a practical application, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (step 2B).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A method of generating computer-readable instructions, comprising: identifying, by a server, for a user associated with a computing device, a first data structure indicating (i) an access token to authorize intake associated with a condition in the user and (ii) a first service of a plurality of services associated with the first data structure; receiving, by the server, a plurality of second data structures for storage on a database, each of the plurality of second data structures indicating (i) the access token and (ii) a second service of the plurality of services associated with the second data structure; accessing, by the server, the database to retrieve a second data structure from the plurality of second data structures using the first data structure, the second data structure indicating a respective second value within a margin of a first value of the first data structure; aggregating, by the server, on the database, data associated with the user, the first data structure, and the second data structure; executing, by the server, a model using the data associated with the user, the first data structure, and the second data structure to generate a computer-readable instruction identifying a value for the user to accept the second data structure instead of the first data structure; and transmitting, by the server, a notification message to the computing device for presentation on a user interface to prompt the user to accept or reject the computer-readable instruction to switch from the first data structure to the second data structure”.
The limitations of “A method of generating computer-readable instructions, comprising: identifying, by a server, for a user associated with a first service of a plurality of services associated with the first data structure; receiving, by the server, a plurality of second data structures for storage on a database, each of the plurality of second data structures indicating (i) the access token and (ii) a second service of the plurality of services associated with the second data structure; accessing, by the server, the database to retrieve a second data structure from the plurality of second data structures using the first data structure, the second data structure indicating a respective second value within a margin of a first value of the first data structure; aggregating, by the server, on the database, data associated with the user, the first data structure, and the second data structure; executing, by the server, a model using the data associated with the user, the first data structure, and the second data structure to generate a computer-readable instruction identifying a value for the user to accept the second data structure instead of the first data structure; and transmitting, by the server, a notification message to
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “computing device” to perform the claimed steps. The “computing device” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “computing device” to perform the claimed steps. The “computing device”, performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “accessing the database to retrieve a subset of second data structures from the plurality of second data structures using the first data structure, each of the subset of second data structures indicating a respective second value within a margin of a first value of the first data structure, wherein generating the computer-readable instruction further comprises generating, for each of the subset of second data structures, a respective computer-readable instruction identifying a respective value to induce the user to accept a corresponding second data structure of the subset of second data structures, and wherein transmitting the notification message further comprises transmitting the notification message identifying the subset of second data structures and the respective computer- readable instruction for each of the subset of second data structures”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “a machine learning (ML) model trained using a training dataset comprising a plurality of examples, each of the plurality of examples identifying (i) a respective third data structure, (ii) a respective fourth data structure to switch with the third data structure, (ii) a respective computer-readable instruction to switch from the third data structure to the fourth data structure, and (iv) an indication of one of acceptance or rejection of the fourth data structure by a respective user”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “a heuristic function of the data associated with the user, the first data structure, and the second data structure to generate the computer-readable instruction to induce the user to accept the second data structure”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “receiving, by the server, via the user interface from the computing device, an indication of acceptance of the computer-readable instruction; and updating, by the server, a user account associated with the user to switch assignment from the first data structure and to the second data structure and to include an identification of the computer-readable instruction”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “transmitting, by the server, responsive to the indication of the acceptance, a second notification message to a program provider service to prompt for acceptance or rejection of the computer-readable instruction; receiving, by the server, from the program provider service, a second indication of acceptance of the program to switch to the second data structure; and generating, by the server, in accordance with the computer-readable instruction, a distribution schedule to transfer the value to one or more accounts associated with the user”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “receiving, by the server via the user interface from the computing device, an indication of a rejection of the second data structure; and continuing, by the server, to monitor the database for a third data structure from the plurality of second data structures to switch with the first data structure, responsive to the indication of the rejection”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “receiving, from at least one of the computing device or the first service, a query identifying the first data structure for which an alternative data structure is to be identified”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “determining, by the server, a likelihood of acceptance of switching from the first data structure to the data structure; and wherein transmitting the notification message further comprises transmitting the notification message, responsive to an occurrence of a trigger condition corresponding to the likelihood satisfying a threshold”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “generating the computer-readable instruction further comprises generating the computer-readable instruction comprising electronic card information associated with the second data structure”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A system for generating computer-readable instructions, comprising: a server having one or more processors coupled with memory, configured to: identify, for a user associated with a computing device, a first data structure indicating (i) an access token to authorize intake associated with a condition in the user and (ii) a first service of a plurality of services associated with the first data structure; receive a plurality of second data structures for storage on a database, each of the plurality of second data structures indicating (i) the access token and (ii) a second service of the plurality of services associated with the second data structure; access the database to retrieve a second data structure from the plurality of second data structures using the first data structure, the second data structure indicating a respective second value within a margin of a first value of the first data structure; aggregate, on the database, data associated with the user, the first data structure, and the second data structure; execute a model using the data associated with the user, the first data structure, and the second data structure to generate a computer-readable instruction identifying a value for the user to accept the second data structure instead of the first data structure; and transmit a notification message to the computing device for presentation on a user interface to prompt the user to accept or reject the computer-readable instruction to switch from the first data structure to the second data structure”.
The limitations of “A authorize intake associated with a condition in the user and (ii) a first service of a plurality of services associated with the first data structure; receive a plurality of second data structures for storage on a database, each of the plurality of second data structures indicating (i) the access token and (ii) a second service of the plurality of services associated with the second data structure; access the database to retrieve a second data structure from the plurality of second data structures using the first data structure, the second data structure indicating a respective second value within a margin of a first value of the first data structure; aggregate, on the database, data associated with the user, the first data structure, and the second data structure; execute a model using the data associated with the user, the first data structure, and the second data structure to generate a computer-readable instruction identifying a value for the user to accept the second data structure instead of the first data structure; and transmit a notification message to the computing device for presentation on a user interface to prompt the user to accept or reject the computer-readable instruction to switch from the first data structure to the second data structure”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “system”, “one or more processors”, “memory” and “a computing device” to perform the claimed steps. The “system”, “one or more processors”, “memory” and “a computing device” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “system”, “one or more processors”, “memory” and “a computing device”, performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “access the database to retrieve a subset of second data structures from the plurality of second data structures using the first data structure, each of the subset of second data structures indicating a respective second value within a margin of a first value of the first data structure, generate, for each of the subset of second data structures, a respective computer-readable instruction identifying a respective value to induce the user to accept a corresponding second data structure of the subset of second data structures, and transmit the notification identifying the subset of second data structures and the respective computer-readable instruction for each of the subset of second data structures”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “a machine learning (ML) model trained using a training dataset comprising a plurality of examples, each of the plurality of examples identifying (i) a respective third data structure, (ii) a respective fourth data structure to switch with the third data structure, (ii) a respective computer-readable instruction to switch from the third data structure to the fourth data structure, and (iv) an indication of one of acceptance or rejection of the fourth data structure by a respective user”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “a heuristic function of the data associated with the user, the first data structure, and the second data structure to generate the computer-readable instruction to induce the user to accept the second data structure”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “receive, via the user interface from the computing device, an indication of acceptance of the computer-readable instruction; and update a user account associated with the user to switch assignment from the first data structure and to the second data structure and to include an identification of the computer-readable instruction”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “transmit, responsive to the indication of the acceptance, a second notification message to a program provider service to prompt for acceptance or rejection of the computer-readable instruction; receive, from the program provider service, a second indication of acceptance of the program to switch to the second data structure; and generate, in accordance with the computer-readable instruction, a distribution schedule to transfer the value to one or more accounts associated with the user”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “receive, via the user interface from the computing device, an indication of a rejection of the second data structure; and continue to monitor the database for a third data structure from the plurality of second data structures to switch with the first data structure, responsive to the indication of the rejection”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “receive, from at least one of the computing device or the first service, a query identifying the first data structure for which an alternative data structure is to be identified”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “determine a likelihood of acceptance of switching from the first data structure to the data structure; and transmit the notification message, responsive to an occurrence of a trigger condition corresponding to the likelihood satisfying a threshold”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “generate the computer- readable instruction comprising electronic card information associated with the second data structure”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2017/0289134) in view of Naji (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2011/0105919) and De Francesco et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,688,495).
Referring toc claim 1, Bradley et al. teaches a method of generating computer-readable instructions, comprising:
identifying, by a server, for a user (Identity provider server 101 can be a compute device capable of authenticating an identity of a user or a compute device (e.g., client compute device 139), see Bradley et al., Para. 45) associated with a computing device, a first data structure indicating (i) an access token to authorize intake associated with a condition in the user and (ii) a first service of a plurality of services associated with the first data structure (user tables with user related information, including user credentials and user biometrics and user behavioral metrics, client computing device tables, service provider servers and the like entities of a distributed consensus system, see Bradley et al., Para. 76);
receiving, by the server, a plurality of second data structures for storage on a database, each of the plurality of second data structures indicating (i) the access token and (ii) a second service of the plurality of services associated with the second data structure (retrieving the corresponding record and/or artifact in the distributed consensus database based on the application reference, see Bradley et al., Para. 69);
accessing, by the server, the database to retrieve a second data structure from the plurality of second data structures using the first data structure, the second data structure indicating a respective second value within a margin of a first value of the first data structure (If the time between the time stamps is greater than a threshold, the older records can be deleted and/or removed from the distributed consensus database, see Bradley et al., Para. 75);
aggregating, by the server, on the database (can store a set of records distributed or replicated over the memories 105, 123 and 135 (as described herein with respect to a distributed consensus database), see Bradley et al., Para. 58), data associated with the user, the first data structure, and the second data structure (merging records from one or more tables in the distributed consensus database instance 103, see Bradley et al., Para. 84).
However, Bradley et al. does not explicitly teach
executing, by the server, a model using the data associated with the user, the first data structure, and the second data structure to generate a computer-readable instruction identifying a value for the user to accept the second data structure instead of the first data structure; and
transmitting, by the server, a notification message to the computing device for presentation on a user interface to prompt the user to accept or reject the computer-readable instruction to switch from the first data structure to the second data structure.
Naji teaches
executing, by the server, a model using the data associated with the user, the first data structure, and the second data structure identifying a value for the user to accept the second data structure instead of the first data structure (be prompted for confirmation in order to overwrite the stored medical data, see Naji, Para. 61); and
transmitting, by the server, a notification message to the computing device for presentation on a user interface to prompt the user to accept or reject to switch from the first data structure to the second data structure (be prompted for confirmation in order to overwrite the stored medical data, see Naji, Para. 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bradley et al., to have executing, by the server, a model using the data associated with the user, the first data structure, and the second data structure to generate a computer-readable instruction identifying a value for the user to accept the second data structure instead of the first data structure; and transmitting, by the server, a notification message to the computing device for presentation on a user interface to prompt the user to accept or reject the computer-readable instruction to switch from the first data structure to the second data structure, as taught by Naji, to improve the quality and efficiency of medical data transfer, communication and retrieval in a medical facility (Naji, Para. 17).
Bradley et al. as modified still does not explicitly teach
generate a computer-readable instruction;
the computer-readable instruction.
De Francesco et al. teaches
generate a computer-readable instruction (generating, by at least one processor of the TBS system, access instructions for the medical study data, see De Francesco et al., Col. 69, lines 61-62);
the computer-readable instruction (generating, by at least one processor of the TBS system, access instructions for the medical study data, see De Francesco et al., Col. 69, lines 61-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bradley et al. as modified, to have generate a computer-readable instruction; the computer-readable instruction, as taught by De Francesco et al., to enhance security (De Francesco et al., Col. 21, line 27).
As to claim 3, Bradley et al. as modified teaches a machine learning (ML) model trained using a training dataset (The algorithm that is selected to find the landmarks can be of the machine learning type. Since the ASP (e.g., Arterys) will be constantly collecting data that has been validated with correct landmark placing by a clinician this data needs to be used as a training set (e.g., statistical aggregation of data), see De Francesco et al., Col. 39, lines 55-60) comprising a plurality of examples, each of the plurality of examples identifying (i) a respective third data structure (Identity provider server 101 can be a compute device capable of authenticating an identity of a user or a compute device (e.g., client compute device 139), see Bradley et al., Para. 45, user tables with user related information, including user credentials and user biometrics and user behavioral metrics, client computing device tables, service provider servers and the like entities of a distributed consensus system, see Bradley et al., Para. 76), (ii) a respective fourth data structure to switch (be prompted for confirmation in order to overwrite the stored medical data, see Naji, Para. 61) with the third data structure (retrieving the corresponding record and/or artifact in the distributed consensus database based on the application reference, see Bradley et al., Para. 69), (ii) a respective computer-readable instruction to switch from the third data structure to the fourth data structure (be prompted for confirmation in order to overwrite the stored medical data, see Naji, Para. 61), and (iv) an indication of one of acceptance or rejection of the fourth data structure by a respective user (be prompted for confirmation in order to overwrite the stored medical data, see Naji, Para. 61).
As to claim 4, Bradley et al. as modified teaches a heuristic function of the data associated with the user, the first data structure, and the second data structure to generate the computer-readable instruction (generating, by at least one processor of the TBS system, access instructions for the medical study data, see De Francesco et al., Col. 69, lines 61-62) to induce the user to accept the second data structure (be prompted for confirmation in order to overwrite the stored medical data, see Naji, Para. 61).
As to claim 5, Bradley et al. as modified teaches receiving, by the server, via the user interface from the computing device, an indication of acceptance (user of medical device 10 provide confirmation through input port 13, user interface 15, or data transmission device 18, medical device 10 will proceed to step 105, see Naji, Para. 45) of the computer-readable instruction (be prompted for confirmation in order to overwrite the stored medical data, see Naji, Para. 61. Naji does not expressly show “prompt for acceptance or rejection of the computer-readable instruction”. However, these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited “prompt for acceptance or rejection of the computer-readable instruction”. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994)); and updating, by the server, a user account associated with the user to switch assignment from the first data structure and to the second data structure (be prompted for confirmation in order to overwrite the stored medical data, see Naji, Para. 61) and to include an identification of the computer-readable instruction (The Trusted Broker Service 1601 exposes an application programming interface (API) which returns the access instructions, when given a unique identifier, see De Francesco et al., Col. 61, lines 17-19).
As to claim 7, Bradley et al. as modified teaches receiving, by the server via the user interface from the computing device, an indication of a rejection of the second data structure (In step 103, the user is prompted for confirmation or administrative authentication. This prompt for confirmation may be done either through output port 14, user interface 15 or through an external electronic device via data transmission device 18. Should the user of medical device 10 provide confirmation through input port 13, user interface 15, or data transmission device 18, medical device 10 will proceed to step 105, see Naji, Para. 45); and continuing, by the server, to monitor the database for a third data structure from the plurality of second data structures to switch with the first data structure, responsive to the indication of the rejection (be prompted for confirmation in order to overwrite the stored medical data, see Naji, Para. 61).
As to claim 8, Bradley et al. as modified teaches receiving, from at least one of the computing device or the first service, a query identifying the first data structure for which an alternative data structure is to be identified (a query can include a key, and the returned result from the distributed database system 100 or distributed database instances 103, 125 and 137 can be a value or data structure associated with the key, see Bradley et al., Para. 34, querying and retrieving supplemental data for a medical scan may be summarized as including: receiving, by a protected health information (PHI) server, a request to retrieve supplemental data from a remote data storage, see De Francesco et al., Col. 13, lines 7-10).
As to claim 9, Bradley et al. as modified teaches determining, by the server, a likelihood of acceptance of switching from the first data structure to the data structure; and wherein transmitting the notification message further comprises transmitting the notification message, responsive to an occurrence of a trigger condition (In step 102, processor 19 may determine if medical data need be overwritten in memory 20, see Naji, Para. 44. In step 103, the user is prompted for confirmation or administrative authentication, see Naji, Para. 45, medical device 10 may be utilized to provide for alerts to be transmitted to an external electronic device should a predetermined triggering mechanism be activated, see Naji, Para. 78) corresponding to the likelihood satisfying a threshold (If the time between the time stamps is greater than a threshold, the older records can be deleted and/or removed from the distributed consensus database, see Bradley et al., Para. 75).
As to claim 10, Bradley et al. as modified teaches generating the computer-readable instruction further comprises generating the computer-readable instruction comprising electronic card information associated with the second data structure (generating, by at least one processor of the TBS system, access instructions for the medical study data, see De Francesco et al., Col. 69, lines 61-62. The medical study data may include MRI data, 4-D flow data, or any other type of data which may have PHI or other protected or personal information, see De Francesco et al., Col. 53, lines 11-13, medical study data (e.g., DICOM files), see De Francesco et al., Col. 53, line 55).
Referring to claim 11, Bradley et al. teaches a system for generating computer-readable instructions, comprising: a server having one or more processors (processor, see Bradley et al., Para. 14) coupled with memory (medium, see Bradley et al., Para. 14), configured to, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 3 rejection.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 4 rejection.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 5 rejection.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 7 rejection.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 8 rejection.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 9 rejection.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 10 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAU SHYA MENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1634. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. 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.
/JAU SHYA MENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights