DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
In the reply filed on 08 June 2026 the following changes have been made: amendments to claims 1 and 7.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
An English translation for KR10-2022-0183164 as well as a statement that the translation is accurate is required. See 37 CFR 1.55 (g)(3)(iii) & 37 CFR 1.55 (g)(4).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded
for the non-English application.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/544,488 fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. For claims 1 and 7, the prior-filed application does not disclose “collecting a real-time neurophysiological EEG data via the EEG sensor and integrating a collected EEG data with AI-based survey assessments”, “adjusting display parameters displayed for the user to predetermined parameters based on AI-driven display adjustments”, “processing user responses through a haptic actuator, including generation of
predetermined adaptive haptic feedback signals based on detected user engagement levels”, “encrypting the result data, wherein the result data is stored in a cloud- database or a local encrypted database”, and “transmitting a control signal to the pharmaceutical mixer of the medication for ADHD based on the result data.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of collecting a real-time neurophysiological EEG data via the EEG sensor and integrating a collected EEG data with AI-based survey assessments, adjusting display parameters displayed for the user to predetermined parameters based on AI-driven display adjustments, processing user responses through a haptic actuator, including generation of predetermined adaptive haptic feedback signals based on detected user engagement levels, encrypting the result data, wherein the result data is stored in a cloud- database or a local encrypted database. and
transmitting a control signal to the pharmaceutical mixer of the medication for ADHD based on the result data. For claims 2 & 8, the prior-filed application does not disclose “acquiring the real-time neurophysiological EEG data from the EEG sensor to complement the collected physical information.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of acquiring the real-time neurophysiological EEG data from the EEG sensor to complement the collected physical information. For claims 3 & 9, the prior-filed application does not disclose “the real-time neurophysiological EEG data.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of the real-time neurophysiological EEG data. For claims 4 & 10, the prior-filed application does not disclose “providing haptic feedback via the haptic actuator to indicate validation, progress, or required adjustments during a survey completion, based on the AI-processed importance values.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of providing haptic feedback via the haptic actuator to indicate validation, progress, or required adjustments during a survey completion, based on the AI-processed importance values. For claims 6 & 12, the prior-filed application does not disclose “EEG readings and haptic interaction patterns.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of EEG readings and haptic interaction patterns. Accordingly, claims 1-12 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
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 1-12 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.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1-6) and a machine (claims 7-12).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites steps of
A method for controlling a pharmaceutical mixer of a medication for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) based on an assessment of a mental health state of an adolescent by using a bioelectrical activity data collected by an electroencephalogram (EEG) sensor in response to a survey formed based on an artificial intelligence (AI), wherein a processor and one or more memory devices communicatively coupled to the processor, and the one or more memory devices stores instructions operable when executed by the processor to perform:
collecting information of physical and mental health of a user by utilizing surveys;
analyzing, by using AI models with the collected information and the surveys, symptoms of a mental illness of the user; and
automatically transmitting a control signal to the pharmaceutical mixer of the medication for ADHD based on the analysis of the AI models,
wherein the one or more memory devices stores instructions operable when executed by the processor to further perform:
collecting a physical information of the user, verifying survey questions regarding a mental health depending on the physical information of the user, and verifying answers to the verified survey questions inputted by the user;
collecting a real-time neurophysiological EEG data via the EEG sensor and integrating a collected EEG data with AI-based survey assessments; and
forming additional survey questions for the user after having the verified answers and calculating a prediction rate of an appearance of symptoms of a mental illness regarding the additional survey questions by using AI models, wherein the
forming of the additional survey question comprises:
selecting an AI model depending on a number of the additional survey questions;
updating AI models, wherein the AI model selection is adjusted based on the real-time user response patterns and the verified answers;
verifying a prediction value of the selected AI model regarding the additional survey questions by using the selected AI model;
verifying the selected AI model according to evaluation indexes preset based on the verified prediction value;
generating a new feature by means of equation 1, which is
PNG
media_image1.png
89
145
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Fnew is a new feature, N is a total number of a plurality of AI models, Pi is an adjusted prediction value of each AI model, pi is the prediction value of each AI model, and Wi is an entropy in a decision tree model and a weighting in other AI models,
outputting a set of feature importance values collected by the new features by means of equation 2, which is
PNG
media_image2.png
86
413
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein SI is a set of collected feature importance values, IMP is an importance value, N is a number of a feature, A-M are identification information of AI models A to M, IMPfN is a final importance value of one feature derived from a plurality of AI models, IMPMf1 is importance values of first features of the AI models, and Nmodels is the number of AI models,
wherein the one or more memory devices stores instructions operable when executed by the processor to further perform:
verifying a set of survey questions including a plurality of sub-questions depending on the calculated prediction rate of the appearance of symptoms of the mental illness;
adjusting display parameters displayed for the user to predetermined parameters based on AI-driven display adjustments;
outputting the verified set of survey questions;
processing user responses through a haptic actuator, including generation of predetermined adaptive haptic feedback signals based on detected user engagement levels;
outputting a result data by adjusting the prediction rate of the appearance of symptoms of the mental illness when the set of survey questions is not verified;
encrypting the result data, wherein the result data is stored in a cloud-database or a local encrypted database; and
transmitting the control signal to the pharmaceutical mixer of the medication for ADHD based on the result data.
Claim 7 recites similar limitations as claim 1.
These steps for personalized medication adjustment (titration) using biofeedback for ADHD, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the italicized portions from managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people by organizing the activity around managing a patient's treatment regimen for ADHD. This could be analogized to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. The italicized portions containing the recitations of calculating a prediction rate, updating AI models, generating a new feature by means of equation 1, and outputting a set of feature importance values collected by the new features by means of equation 2 at a high level of generality has been treated as part of the abstract idea, specifically as mathematical calculations which falls within the abstract idea of mathematical concepts, in light of the new 2024 USPTO AI Guidance. The recitations of equations 1 and 2 has been treated as part of the abstract idea, specifically as mathematical equations which falls within the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as human activity and mathematical calculations & equations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements, non-italicized portions identified above for claims 1 & 7, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of by an electroencephalogram (EEG) sensor; based on an artificial intelligence (AI), wherein a processor and one or more memory devices communicatively coupled to the processor, and the one or more memory devices stores instructions operable when executed by the processor; via the EEG sensor and integrating a collected EEG data with AI-based survey assessments; by using AI models; by using the selected AI model; wherein the one or more memory devices stores instructions operable when executed by the processor; based on AI-driven display adjustments; and, through a haptic actuator, including generation of predetermined adaptive haptic feedback signals based on detected user engagement levels amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of collecting information of physical and mental health of a user; automatically transmitting a control signal to the pharmaceutical mixer; collecting a physical information of a user; collecting a real-time neurophysiological EEG data; outputting a set of feature importance values; outputting the verified set of survey questions; outputting a result data; wherein the result data is stored in a cloud-database or a local encrypted database; and, transmitting a control signal to the pharmaceutical mixer amounts to mere data gathering, data output, and storage since it does not add meaningful limitations to the collecting, outputting, transmitting, and storing actions performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Each of the above additional elements therefore only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computer components or other machines within their ordinary capacity, and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the above claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception in particular fields such as recitation of by an electroencephalogram (EEG) sensor, wherein a processor and one or more memory devices communicatively coupled to the processor, and the one or more memory devices stores instructions operable when executed by the processor; via the EEG sensor and integrating a collected EEG data with AI-based survey assessments; and, wherein the one or more memory devices stores instructions operable when executed by the processor; e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f);
such as recitation of based on an artificial intelligence (AI); by using AI models; by using the selected AI model, e.g. requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer; based on AI-driven display adjustments; and, through a haptic actuator, including generation of predetermined adaptive haptic feedback signals based on detected user engagement levels, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), MPEP 2106.05(f);
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as recitation of collecting information of physical and mental health of a user; automatically transmitting a control signal to the pharmaceutical mixer; collecting a physical information of a user; collecting a real-time neurophysiological EEG data; outputting a set of feature importance values; outputting the verified set of survey questions; outputting a result data; and, transmitting a control signal to the pharmaceutical mixer, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); such as recitation of wherein the result data is stored in a cloud-database or a local encrypted database, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2-6 and 8-12 reciting particular aspects for personalized medication adjustment (titration) using biofeedback for ADHD such as
[Claims 2 & 8] outputting questions regarding age, height, weight, or waist measurement of the user and collecting the answers as physical information of the user by receiving answers to the outputted questions; and
acquiring the real-time neurophysiological EEG data from the EEG sensor to complement the collected physical information and enhance a predetermined accuracy level of the AI-based mental health predictions;
[Claims 3 & 9] outputting by using the AI models, among the questions regarding the physical information of the user, survey questions tailored based on both the user-inputted physical information and the real-time neurophysiological EEG data to which answers is obtained within a predetermined time;
[Claims 4 & 10] confirming survey questions, corresponding to the feature importance values included in the set of calculated feature importance values, as the additional survey questions; and
providing haptic feedback via the haptic actuator to indicate validation, progress, or required adjustments during a survey completion, based on the AI-processed importance values;
[Claims 5 & 11] outputting the additional questions confirmed in a descending order of feature importance values calculated by equation 2;
[Claims 6 & 12] periodically re-verifying the set of survey questions for the user when the prediction rate of the appearance of symptoms of the mental illness exceeds a predetermined value; and
selecting the AI model from a plurality of trained models based on real-time data streams, including EEG readings and haptic interaction patterns;
these italicized portions are methods of organizing human activity. Additionally, the italicized portions of claims 5 & 11 recite mathematical calculations which falls within the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. These identified limitations merely describe types of data and determinations that can be performed by humans).
Step 2A Prong 2
Dependent claims 2-5 & 8-11 recites additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (the additional limitations in claims 3 & 9 (by using the AI models) and claims 4 & 10 (via the haptic actuator) amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)); add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea such as claims 2 & 8 (outputting questions regarding age, height, weight, or waist measurement of the user and collecting the answers as physical information of the user by receiving answers to the outputted questions; and, acquiring the real-time neurophysiological EEG data), claims 3 & 9 (outputting […] survey questions tailored […] to which answers is obtained within a predetermined time), claims 5 & 11 (outputting the additional questions) amounts to mere data output since it does not add meaningful limitations to the outputting performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Dependent claims 3-4 & 9-10 recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, see [0042] which provides examples of generic computing devices, [0048] which provides examples of generic memory types, and [0049] which provides examples of generic display devices. Dependent claims 2-3, 5, 8-9, and 11 amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). There is no indication that these additional elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Therefore, in consideration of all the facts, the present invention is still not a patent-eligible invention under USC 101. Additionally, it is evident that the present claims monopolizes fundamental human reasoning and mathematical formulas, restricting further innovation in this area without offering a specific, technical improvement to how the computer actually operates; “monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (quoting Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08 June 2026 have been considered but are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the USC 101 rejection, applicant argues on pages 9 to 14 that they would like to remind the USPTO that for the previous application 18/544,488 an interview was conducted on 02/05/2025, and based on that discussion a CIP was filed with limitations similar to USPTO 101 guidance. Applicant points to USPTO Example 46 and walks through the USPTO analysis of Example 46 of comparing claims 1 vs 2. Applicant compares the patient-eligible claim of Example 46 to the present claim 7 with support from [0012] of the specification, asserting that present claim 7 has been amended similarly especially with the recitation of "transmitting a control signal to the pharmaceutical mixer of the medication for ADHD based on the result data (based on the assessment of a mental health state of an adolescent)." In response to the examiner’s comment on 04/30/2026 on the claim lacking a specific technical implementation i.e., no improvement or change in operation of the pharmaceutical mixer itself was provided, applicant directs examiner to the practice note on page 37 of the 2019 October Examples. Applicant requests withdrawal of the USC 101 rejection.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. Examiner asserts the claims still recite an abstract idea. Applicant directs the examiner to the interview of the parent case, but examiner asserts that case as examined by a different examiner; regardless, the parent case has no bearing on the examination of this child case. MPEP Chapter 2100 makes it clear that every application and claim is evaluated entirely on its own merits based on the evidence and facts in that specific record. While child applications trace priority to a parent, they are examined independently, and examiners are not influenced by prior applications. Examiner also reminds the applicant that USPTO Examples are informative for further understanding and not precedential. Applicant tries to compare the present independent claims to claim 2 of Example 46 asserting similarity, but examiner points out the present limitations in the independent claims are not even of the same scope as eligible claim 2 of Example 46. While the Practice Note did state that that none of the limitations in claim 2 could invoke the “particular treatment or prophylaxis” consideration, examiner points out that the explanation on page 37 (which the applicant left out of in their explanation) explicitly stated “Limitation (d) in combination with the feed dispenser enables the control of appropriate farm equipment based on the automatic detection of grass tetany, which goes beyond merely automating the abstract idea. Using the information obtained via the judicial exception to take corrective action such that the monitoring component is operable to control the feed dispenser in a particular way is an “other meaningful limitation” that integrates the judicial exception into the overall livestock management scheme and accordingly practically applies the exception, such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.” This analysis on page 37 of Example 46 is consistent with what the examiner communicated to the applicant during the 04/30/2026 interview. Examiner stands by that analysis, as supported by page 37 of Example 46, since neither the applicant’s claims nor even the specification disclose any change or improvement to the operation of the pharmaceutical mixer itself; all the applicant has ended up claiming is a transmission step which has stopped short of a meaningful control or dispensing step. Examiner also directs the applicant to the USPTO October 2019 Guidance (also incorporated in MPEP 2106) which states that claims can recite an abstract idea even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The USPTO October 2019 Guidance is clear in that the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite an abstract idea even though the limitations may not be entirely performed by humans. The computer components recited in the present application are still recited at a high level of generality. Examiner points out that the computers in the claims are not used in a specific, inventive way. The claim dresses up an abstract process with generic hardware. Courts have long ruled that adding "apply it on a computer to an abstract idea does not make it a patentable invention (MPEP 2106). The claims are very outcome-focused and do not detail how each of the outcomes are reached. There is no clarity on the actual computer processing or how the computer is programmed to achieve the results in a non-abstract way different from how humans handle data. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that applicant’s invention is directed to judicial exception as also confirmed by multiple subject matter experts at the USPTO. Examiner asserts that tacking on generic language of AI models (which the applicant did not contend they invented) without delineating the algorithmic steps explaining the “how” that is unique to the AI models being implemented in the present invention does not automatically save the claims from USC 101. The present AI models claimed are black box models with no clarity on the actual computer processing or how the computer is programmed to achieve the results in a non-abstract way different from how humans analyze/process data. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to ‘implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer’, it cannot save OIP's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted).
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, examiner asserts that the present specification provides a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The MPEP provides that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field can signal eligibility, see MPEP 2106.05(a), and provides examples of improvements to computer functionality, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), and improvements to any other technology of technical field, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool”. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification' s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. Unlike Enfish, the instant claimed invention appears to improve upon a judicial exception rather than a problem in the software arts. Rather than improving a computer's algorithm (i.e., solving a technically based problem), the claimed invention purports to solve the non-technological problem of challenges with mental heal screening: (1) guardians must coordinate appointments and visit medical institutions, (2) guardians must complete various surveys, and (3) survey responses are often influenced by guardians over-interpreting the adolescent's behavior ([0008] to [0009] of specification) by using computers to automate sending signals to automate personalized medication adjustment (titration) using biofeedback for ADHD. In other words, one of the main/glaring issues with the present invention is that the problem solved by the applicant is not a technological problem. All the applicant is doing is applying known technology for their intended benefit(s) to a new data environment and calling it an improvement (see Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., Case No.18-2239 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020).
The examiner asserts the following facts which the applicant will be unable to dispute:
1) the invention does NOT involve a novel algorithm or data structure that significantly improves the computer's functionality,
2) the invention does NOT involve a new hardware component or configuration that works with the computer to achieve a specific technical benefit, and
3) the computer is NOT used in a completely new way demonstrating a significant technical advancement.
It is evident from the specification and claims that the applicant is not improving computer technology, and instead providing an improvement to the abstract idea by automating early-stage detection. An improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to computer technology. Thus, examiner does not see how the present claims improve the functioning of a computer or provide improvements to any other technology or technical field. The claimed invention appears similar to the example of improvements that are insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality such as arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)(viii). The broad claims are lacking concrete limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner points out that the claimed limitations have no indication in the specification that the operations recited invoke any inventive programming, require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (fed Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”). Most importantly, in DDR Holdings & unlike the present claims, the claims at issue specified how interactions with the Internet were manipulated to yield a desired result—a result that overrode the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink. 773 F.3d at 1258; 113 USPQ2d at 1106. The examiner also points out that there is no indication in the specification that the claimed invention affects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner points to the recitation of machine learning in the claim(s) as generic. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208 223 (2014). Applicant does not and cannot contend they invented the concept of AI models, nor does the specification disclose any AI modeling technique. The alleged improvement of using AI mdoels lies in the abstract idea itself, not to any technological improvement nor to any improvement to the functioning of a computer. See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The fact pattern of the applicant’s claims is congruent to the Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 2025 U.S.P.Q.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 2025) decision by the Federal Circuit. Just like in Recentive, the present claims do not delineate steps through which the AI modeling technology achieves an improvement. See, e.g., IBM v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding abstract a claim that "d[id] not sufficiently describe how to achieve [its stated] results in a non-abstract way," because "[s]uch functional claim language, without more, is insufficient for patentability under our law." (quoting Two-Way Media Ltd v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017))); see also Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (similar); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (similar). Claiming a mere concept or functional result without disclosing the implementation details does not overcome USC 101. Applying an established technique to a new field or data set is insufficient for patent eligibility. To show an involvement of a computer assists in improving technology, the claims must recite details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems the courts found that the claims were “directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality…” (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The present invention clearly does not meet the condition set forth by the courts and thus is not integrated into a practical application. Additionally, it is evident that the present claims follow the fact pattern of Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) by monopolizing fundamental human reasoning and mathematical formulas, restricting further innovation in this area without offering a specific, technical improvement to how the computer actually operates. That is, it is clear applicant’s invention would stifle innovation (i.e., implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer) in the United States of America. Again, using generic computers is generally not enough to transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter if the core of the invention is still abstract; “monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (quoting Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)). The applicant has not demonstrated that their invention is inventive; thus, the present invention is not patent-eligible under USC 101. Therefore, the USC 101 rejection is strongly maintained.
Prior Art Cited but Not Relied Upon
Manolo E B. Towards A Personalized Medicine Approach for the Titration of Pharmacologic Treatments in Children with ADHD. J of Pharmacol & Clin Res. 2017; 8(3): 555614.
This reference is relevant because is discloses a personalized medicine approach for treatments in children with ADHD.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WINSTON FURTADO whose telephone number is (571)272-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WINSTON R FURTADO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights