DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reference to the communication filed on 12 JUN 2026.
Amendments to claims 1, 9, 10, 13, entered and considered.
Claims 1-17 are present and have been examined.
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 1-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As explained below, the claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One: Is the Claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1-17 the independent claim(s) 1, 10 recite(s) a method and system, each of which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1-17 the independent claim(s) (claims 1, 10) is/are directed, in part, to:
providing a predictive risk assessment
receiving, at said predictive risk assessment unit, digital survey data
performing,
calculate direct effect coefficients between said risk factors;
determine mediating effects between social adjustment factors and risk projections; and generate risk assessment scores based on said effect coefficients;
maintaining, in a risk factor indexing component
automatically generating
risk prediction quotients for multiple risk segments;
weighted statistical analysis of said risk prediction quotients; and
recommended intervention products based on said weighted statistical analysis;
storing said individual risk portfolio in the individual risk portfolio storage of
transmitting said individual risk portfolio to an intervention partner
receiving from said intervention partner intervention outcome data comprising numeric indicators of intervention success;
storing said intervention outcome data
automatically recalibrating said machine learning algorithm when statistical relationships tracked in said risk factor indexing component change beyond predetermined statistical significance thresholds, said recalibrating comprising:
updating path coefficients based on said intervention outcome data;
adjusting risk assessment score calculations; and modifying intervention product recommendations; and
generating a modified individual risk portfolio based on said recalibrated machine learning algorithm.
These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process, in that the claims ensconce concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion functions. Providing risk assessments based on collected or received information, as well as then updating the group and individual risk portfolios for a given population is an example of such concepts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a concept performed in the human mind, then it/they falls/ fall into the “mental processes” category.
The claims are further directed to mathematical concepts – i.e. mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and/or calculations. An algorithm, a risk calculation including confirmatory factor analysis, coefficient calculations, risk score assessments, weighted statistical analysis, and recalibrating the algorithm by updating and adjusting prior calculations are all examples of mathematical concepts as identified above. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and/or calculations, then it/they falls/ fall into the “mathematical processes” category.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) additional elements: Claim 1 recites a “computer” with a “processor” and a “memory storing a real time geospatial database,” a remote survey device, and a “partner computer.” Claim 10 recites similar elements, with the remote survey device configured to “display digital survey interfaces.” The computer/processor/memory in claims 1, 10 is/are recited at a high level of generality and as such amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f), or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use/computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05h). Examiner finds similarly with respect to the remote survey device/partner computer. Examiner finds no improvement to the functioning of the computer or any other technology or technical field in the above identified elements as claimed (see MPEP 2106.05a), nor any other application or use of the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond a general like between the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05e). Examiner also notes that displaying data (i.e. on a display digital survey interface), storing information in a memory (i.e. a geospatial database), as well as sending and receiving information between computers (i.e. the computer, partner computer, and survey device(s)) are all examples of adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception(s) identified (see MPEP 2106.05g).
Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO.
The independent claim(s) is/are additionally directed to claim elements such as: Claim 1 recites a “computer” with a “processor” and a “memory storing a real time geospatial database,” a remote survey device, and a “partner computer.” Claim 10 recites similar elements, with the remote survey device configured to “display digital survey interfaces.” When considered individually, the above identified claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in:
[0061] Computer system 400 includes a communications bus 402, or other communications infrastructure, which communicates data to other elements of computer system 400. For example, communications bus 402 may communicate data (e.g., text, graphics, video, other data) between bus 402 and an I/O interface 404, which may include a display, a data entry device such as a keyboard, touch screen, mouse, or the like, and any other peripheral devices capable of entering and/or viewing data as may be apparent to those skilled in the art. Further, computer system 400 includes a processor 406, which may comprise a special purpose or a general purpose digital signal processor. Still further, computer system 400 includes a primary memory 408, which may include by way of non-limiting example random access memory (“RAM”), read-only memory (“ROM”), one or more mass storage devices, or any combination of tangible, non-transitory memory. Still further, computer system 400 includes a secondary memory 410, which may comprise a hard disk, a removable data storage unit, or any combination of tangible, non-transitory memory. Finally, computer system 400 may include a communications interface 412, such as a modem, a network interface (e.g., an Ethernet card or cable), a communications port, a PCMCIA slot and card, a wired or wireless communications system (such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Infrared, and the like), local area networks, wide area networks, intranets, and the like.
[0062] Each of primary memory 408, secondary memory 410, communications interface 412, and combinations of the foregoing may function as a computer usable storage medium or computer readable storage medium to store and/or access computer software including computer instructions. For example, computer programs or other instructions may be loaded into the computer system 400 such as through a removable data storage device (e.g., a floppy disk, ZIP disks, magnetic tape, portable flash drive, optical disk such as a CD, DVD, or Blu-ray disk, Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (“MEMS”), and the like). Thus, computer software including computer instructions may be transferred from, e.g., a removable storage or hard disc to secondary memory 410, or through data communication bus 402 to primary memory 408.
[0072] In accordance with still further aspects of an embodiment of the invention, a computer program product may be provided to provide software to the cloud computing environment. Computer products store software on any computer useable medium, known now or in the future. Such software, when executed, may implement the methods according to certain embodiments of the invention. By way of non-limiting example, such computer usable mediums may include primary storage devices (e.g., any type of random access memory), secondary storage devices (e.g., hard drives, floppy disks, CD ROMS, ZIP disks, tapes, magnetic storage devices, optical storage devices, MEMS, nanotech storage devices, etc.), and communication mediums (e.g., wired and wireless communications networks, local area networks, wide area networks, intranets, etc.). Those skilled in the art will recognize that the embodiments described herein may be implemented using software, hardware, firmware, or combinations thereof.
These passages, as well as others, makes it clear that the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
As per dependent claims 2-9, 11-17:
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-17 are not directed any additional abstract ideas and are also not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as risk coefficients used, multivariate analysis of segmented populations, displaying generated maps, means of updating the model itself, additional feedback data to the algorithm(s0), and validation. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are believed to be free of the prior art. The closest prior art of record is:
McNair (US 20220358389 A1) – McNair teaches a risk of adherence/non-adherence as modeled for an individual and updated based on the demographic or population factors as needed over a long term forecast. This model is updated with the collected real-time user information as per if a relapse or non-adherence to a treatment has occurred.
Lewis (US 20200143946 A1) – Lewis teaches a risk modeling system for validated factors for an individual and as compared to the demographic population, and modifies these assessments using mitigation factors for the risk itself and the likelihood of a user availing oneself of them. This is in turn used to train the model for future uses.
Su et al (20200321127) – Su teaches a means of mapping or generating individual risk profiles of respiratory disease as compared to a demographic or geographic group, as well as assigning/using coefficients as per the group/geographic risk models. Su explicitly considers the larger demographic risk group/trained model, as well as comparing the individual risk profile as applied to characteristics of the individual themselves in creating the risk profile.
Simon et al (20150347705) – Simon teaches a hierarchical risk mapping process for a patient’s care as compared to the population, when considering an inferred risk of a given condition. Simon weights these considerations with individual considerations and demographic risks, as well as personal lifestyle behaviors of the individual, and the model is continually updated using electronic health records.
McKenna et al (WO2011059720)- McKenna teaches confidence intervals in risk scores for an individual as compared to a population, and ranking the risks based on a coefficient calculation.
However, the cited references do not teach separately or in combination the specifically claimed process of calculating the initial risk inclusive of the coefficients, maintaining the relationship matrix between the risk variables, and individually calculating a risk profile by calculating group risk profiles, weighted analysis of the quotients and intervention considerations, and using said information to recalibrate based on the specific factors as claimed. The Examiner hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence neither anticipates nor renders obvious the particular combination of elements as claimed. That is, the Examiner emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks as filed on 12 JUN 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the 101 rejection begin on page 13 with a summary of USPTO policy regarding subject matter eligibility.
On page 14 Applicant discusses the “mental process” exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s conclusions regarding the abstract idea(s) identified. Applicant reproduces limitations of the claims on page 14/15, however Examiner respectfully disagrees that a human cannot carry out the steps as claimed. A human mind could also maintain and update data as claimed. Further, the storage/processing elements are addressed as additional elements in subsequent steps.
Applicant turns to a discussion of the mathematical concept on page 16, however Examiner is unclear as to if Applicant is conceding or arguing the presence of mathematical concepts in the claim integrated into a practical application.
Applicant turns to a discussion of the prior art on page 16/17, arguing an improvement. Examiner respectfully counters that improving risk assessment is not itself a technical improvement per se for the purposes of the evaluation. The process of risk assessment may be embodied in technical elements, but the actual improvement(s) are not to the additional elements identified above. The computer itself is not improved by the claimed limitations.
Applicant asserts a three component database architecture on page 17/18, Examiner notes that the number of components is not correlated to whether the abstract idea is implemented into a practical application, nor does Applicant provide an explanation beyond a discussion of the claimed limitations and the components themselves. Again, no improvement to the components or a technical aspect is found, nor anything beyond language analogous to apply the abstract idea using the additional elements. Examiner did not assert the database was generic, only that storage of data is insignificant extra solution activity.
Examiner finds similarly with regard to the remarks about closed loop architecture on page 18/19 – this in and of itself is not evidence of a practica application. Closed loop architecture is not found to be a “technical innovation” nor is the functioning of the network or the components found to be improved. Examiner noted that the components as claimed merely encompass sending and receiving of data.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the “trigger” mechanism on page 20 are found to be more appropriate in a discussion of the abstract idea(s) as currently claimed. Applicant is encouraged to add technical details to this limitation if it is believed the specification supports such amendments in order to advance prosecution.
Applicant’s remarks regarding real world technical results on pages 20/21 are noted. Examiner again respectfully submits that any improvements are not to the technical elements or aspects of the claim, rather, the technical/additional elements are relied upon to execute/apply the instructions for the abstract idea(s).
Applicant turns to a discussion of step 2B/significantly more on page 21 of the remarks. Examiner respectfully submits that well understood, routine and conventional is not the only test or standard for finding significantly more. Applicant then turns to a discussion of the prior art – Examiner notes that prior art/novelty is a separate inquiry from subject matter eligibility. Per MPEP 2106.05d: “. The question of whether a particular claimed invention is novel or obvious is "fully apart" from the question of whether it is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 190, 209 USPQ 1, 9 (1981).” Examiner notes that the prior art discussion of the action in no way references an “improvement” per se. Further, the improvement itself must be technical in nature – “In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). Examiner does not find, nor does Applicant identify, the purported technical improvement at this step beyond arguing the lack of novelty into page 22 of the remarks.
Applicant references the application paragraphs cited in the rejection on page 23-24: Applicant again disagrees with the inquiry and/or the conclusion but does not provide an assertion as to what the specific unconventional technical arrangement is nor the technical improvement beyond blanket statements. The citations provided by Applicant on pge 23 are helpful, but Examiner finds these more descriptive than indicative of an improvement.
Applicant’s mapping of the new limitations is noted and appreciated.
Applicant’s summary is also appreciated; however Examiner believes the mentioned issues have been addressed in the above remarks.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mamon Obeid can be reached at 571-270-1813. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE . KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights