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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/13/2026 has been entered.
Formal Matters
Applicant's response, filed 07/13/2026, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Status of Claims
Claims 31-64 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 31, 42, and 53 have been amended.
Claims 31-64 have been rejected.
Priority
The instant application claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. § 120, 121, or 365(c). Accordingly, the effective filing date for the instant application is 26 March 2021 claiming benefit to Provisional Application 63/166,427.
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 31-64 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 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 31-64 are drawn to a system, manufacture, or method, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claim 31 recites a system for determining a pathogen risk to one or more users in part performing the steps of [storing] a knowledge base including a plurality of infection risk tuples and a plurality of recommendation tuples, wherein the infection risk tuples each include a pathogen, one or more pathogen parameters that affect an infection risk to the pathogen, and an infection risk value that defines a likelihood of a user having the pathogen parameters to be infected by the pathogen, and further wherein the recommendation tuples each include a pathogen susceptibility condition, one or more factors that affect the pathogen susceptibility condition and a relationship that indicates how the factors affect the pathogen susceptibility condition and a relationship strength of the relationship; and enable the user to select at least one target pathogen and to input personal characteristics including at least an age, sex, location and occupation of the user; determine a general pathogen risk score and an adjusted infection risk value of the user, wherein the general pathogen risk score is a quantified risk of a population of people being infected by a target pathogen based on at least one of the infection risk tuples, and the adjusted infection risk value is a risk of the user being infected by the target pathogen based on an infection risk value of one of the infection risk tuples that includes the target pathogen and pathogen parameters that match one or more personal characteristics of the user; enable the user to select one or more of the pathogen susceptibility conditions as selected conditions; generate, from a subset of the recommendation tuples corresponding to the selected conditions, a navigation image that concurrently displays one or more relationship strength features adjacent to a network web, wherein the network web graphically illustrates nodes representing the selected conditions and visible connections between each of the nodes and one or more related factors of the factors that have an identified relationship with the selected conditions according to the recommendation tuples that include the selected conditions, wherein the visible connections indicate how the one or more factors affect the selected conditions; enable the user to selectively input changes to one or more relationship strength threshold values associated with the selected conditions using the relationship strength features, wherein the relationship strength of the relationship of each of the recommendation tuples indicated an evidentiary strength of the relationship of that recommendation tuple; and dynamically alter the network web based on the input changes to the relationship strength threshold values by modifying the subset of recommendation tuples represented within the web according to one or more relationship strength ranges defined by the relationship strength threshold values, wherein the altering of the network web is such that the one or more related factors included in the network web is modified to only be a set of the related factors whose identified relationship to the selected conditions, according to the recommendation tuples that include the selected conditions, falls within the one or more relationship strength ranges defined by the relationship strength threshold values for the selected conditions.
Independent claim 42 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium for determining a pathogen risk in part performing the steps of [storing] a knowledge base including a plurality of infection risk tuples and a plurality of recommendation tuples, wherein the infection risk tuples each include a pathogen, one or more pathogen parameters that affect an infection risk to the pathogen, and an infection risk value that defines a likelihood of a user having the pathogen parameters to be infected by the pathogen, and further wherein the recommendation tuples each include a pathogen susceptibility condition, one or more factors that affect the pathogen susceptibility condition and a relationship that indicates how the factors affect the pathogen susceptibility condition and a relationship strength of the relationship; determine a general pathogen risk score and an adjusted infection risk value of the user, wherein the general pathogen risk score is a quantified risk of a population of people being infected by a target pathogen based on at least one of the infection risk tuples, and the adjusted infection risk value is a risk of the user being infected by the target pathogen based on an infection risk value of one of the infection risk tuples that includes the target pathogen and pathogen parameters that match one or more personal characteristics of the user; enable the user to select at least one target pathogen and to input personal characteristics including at least an age, sex, location and occupation of the user; enable the user to select one or more of the pathogen susceptibility conditions as selected conditions; generate, from a subset of the recommendation tuples corresponding to the selected conditions, a navigation image that concurrently displays one or more relationship strength features adjacent to a network web, wherein the network web graphically illustrates nodes representing the selected conditions and visible connections between each of the nodes and one or more related factors of the factors that have an identified relationship with the selected conditions according to the recommendation tuples that include the selected conditions, wherein the visible connections indicate how the one or more factors affect the selected conditions; enable the user to selectively input changes to one or more relationship strength threshold values associated with the selected conditions using the relationship strength features, wherein the relationship strength of the relationship of each of the recommendation tuples indicates an evidentiary strength of the relationship of that recommendation tuples; and dynamically alter the network web based on the input changes to the relationship strength threshold values by modifying the subset of recommendation tuples represented within the network web according to one or more relationship strength rages defined by the relationship strength threshold values, wherein the altering of the network web is such that the one or more related factors included in the network web is modified to only be a set of the related factors whose identified relationship to the selected conditions, according to the recommendation tuples that include the selected conditions, falls within the one or more relationship strength ranges defined by the relationship strength threshold values for the selected conditions..
Independent claim 53 recites a method for determining a pathogen risk in part performing the steps of providing a knowledge base including a plurality of infection risk tuples and a plurality of recommendation tuples, wherein the infection risk tuples each include a pathogen, one or more pathogen parameters that affect an infection risk to the pathogen, and an infection risk value that defines a likelihood of a user having the pathogen parameters to be infected by the pathogen, and further wherein the recommendation tuples each include a pathogen susceptibility condition, one or more factors that affect the pathogen susceptibility condition and a relationship that indicates how the factors affect the pathogen susceptibility condition and a relationship strength of the relationship; and determine a general pathogen risk score and an adjusted infection risk value of the user, wherein the general pathogen risk score is a quantified risk of a population of people being infected by a target pathogen based on at least one the infection risk tuples, and the adjusted infection risk value is a risk of the user being infected by the target pathogen based on an infection risk value of one of the infection risk tuples that includes the target pathogen and pathogen parameters that match one or more personal characteristics of the user; enable the user to select at least one target pathogen and to input personal characteristics including at least an age, sex, location and occupation of the user; enable the user to select one or more of the pathogen susceptibility conditions as selected conditions; generate, from a subset of the recommendation tuples corresponding to the selected conditions, a navigation image that concurrently displays one or more relationship strength features adjacent to a network web, wherein the network web graphically illustrates nodes representing the selected conditions and visible connections between each of the nodes and one or more related factors of the factors that have an identified relationship with the selected conditions according to the recommendation tuples that include the selected conditions, wherein the visible connections indicate how the one or more factors affect the selected conditions; enable the user to selectively input changes to one or more relationship strength threshold values associated with the selected conditions using the relationship strength features, wherein the relationship strength of the relationship of each of the recommendation tuples indicates an evidentiary strength of the relationship of that recommendation tuple; and dynamically alter the network web based on the input changes to the relationship strength threshold values by modifying the subset of recommendation tuples represented within the network web according to one or more relationship strength ranges defined by the relationship strength threshold values, wherein the altering of the network web is such that the one or more related factors included in the network web is modified to only be a set of the related factors whose identified relationship to the selected conditions, according to the recommendation tuples that include the selected conditions, falls within the one or more relationship strength ranges defined by the relationship strength threshold values for the selected conditions.
These steps of collecting pathogen risk data and providing a user different information based on receiving changing risk factors amount to methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation; advertising, marketing, and sales activities or behaviors; and managing human mental activity (MPEP § 2106.04(a}{2)(II}(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people similar to iii. a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982) — also note October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility on p. 5 and MPEP § 2106.04(a){2)(II) stating certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping).
Dependent claim 32, 43, and 54 recites, in part, the [interface] has an article feature and upon selection of the article feature is operable to generate: a documentation page including a document identifier that identifies a document that connects one of the selected conditions to one of the factors of the one of the selected conditions and an excerpt of the document that indicates a connection between the one of the selected conditions and the one of the factors.
Dependent claim 33, 44, and 55 recites, in part, wherein the pathogen parameters include one or more of a group consisting of: age, sex, weight, height, ethnicity, location, vaccination status, smoking habits, medications, medical conditions, topical agents, worn materials and social distancing behavior.
Dependent claim 34, 45, and 56 recites, in part, wherein the personal characteristics include one or more of a group consisting of: age, sex, weight, height, ethnicity, location, vaccination status, smoking habits, current medications, current medical conditions, current topical agents, current worn materials and social distancing behavior.
Dependent claim 35, 46, and 57 recites, in part, wherein the population of people is the entire population of people described in the pathogen knowledge base regardless of their personal characteristics.
Dependent claim 36, 47, and 58 recites, in part, wherein the average pathogen risk is based on: a risk of being infected by the pathogen to the population of people; and an average occupational risk factor considering all occupations of the occupational risk table.
Dependent claim 37, 48, and 59 recites, in part, dynamically measures and inputs one or more of the parameters of the user, the one or more parameters comprising one or more of heart rate, blood oxygen level and respiratory rate.
Dependent claim 38, 49, and 60 recites, in part, determine a current location of the computing device/the user and determine one or more businesses and events near the current location.
Dependent claim 39, 50, and 61 recites, in part, using an event/business pathogen risk database, determine an event pathogen risk value for each of the one or more businesses and events based on at least one of a type of the business or the event and a location of the business or the event.
Dependent claim 40, 51, and 62 recites, in part, provide one or more pathogen recommendations to the user, wherein the pathogen recommendations indicate the event pathogen risk value for each of the one or more businesses and events based on a type of the business or the event.
Dependent claim 41, 52, and 63 recites, in part, determine an overall pathogen risk score for the user by averaging the difference for each of the pathogens for the user.
Dependent claim 64 recites, in part, display a list of the related factors and the selected conditions of the network web as concurrently displayed; enable selection of a subset of the related factors and the selected conditions; and dynamically alters the network web as concurrently displayed based on the subset such that the related factors and the selected conditions of the subset are emphasized within the network web with respect to the related factors and the selected conditions that are not a part of the subset.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims 32-41, 43-52, and 54-64 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 31, 42, and 53 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements analyzed below in the expected manner.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Claims 31, 42, and 53 recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a knowledge base and a digital vaccine platform. Claims 31, 42, and 53 recite a digital image. Claims 32, 42, 43, 53, and 54 recite a platform user interface. The specification defines the computer, memory, and user interface/digital image as any suitable generic combination of hardware and software components for performing the steps of the abstract idea (see the Specification on p. 15 line 12 – p. 16 line 15. Therefore, the use of the a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a knowledge base and a digital vaccine platform, digital image, platform user interface, and computing device in this case to determine a pathogen risk and provide pathogen risk recommendations to one or more users, only recites the hardware components as a tool to apply data to an algorithm and report the results (MPEP § 2106.05(f}(2) see case involving a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer within the “Other examples.. 3.”) amounting to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014).
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claims 31, 42, and 53 recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a knowledge base and a digital vaccine platform. Claims 31, 42, and 53 recite a digital image. Claims 32, 42, 43, 53, and 54 recite a platform user interface.
Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of the storage mediums to store data, the computer and data processing devices to apply the algorithm, and the display device to display selected results of the algorithm. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 31-64 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that under Step 2A Prong 2, the claims recite an improvement to computer-implemented navigation of a graph-based knowledge base and thus contain a practical application. Examiner is not persuaded. The instant application is not directed towards the unique software development of network web graphical user interfaces – that is, there is no evidence that at the time the invention was file, the navigation or manipulation of a network web via a graphical user interface on a display was novel. This position is supported at least by (1) Cytoscape User Manual 3.6, 11. Navigation and Layout (available publicly online on February 14, 2018 – see at least https://web.archive.org/web/20180214103413/https://manual.cytoscape.org/en/stable/Navigation_and_Layout.html); (2) Grandjean, GEPHI – Introduction to Network Analysis and Visualization [new video], MartinGrandjean (Oct. 15, 2015) (3) Bastian et al., Gephi : An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks, Third International ICWSM Conference 361-362 (2009), with Gephi and Cytoscape being the industry standard for network web development and navigation software. Examiner notes that the Specification further fails to establish that navigation of a network web is a problem in the prior art or any technical solution to said problem. Examiner notes that the claims may still recite an abstract idea even if said abstract idea is an improvement over the prior art (see MPEP § 2106.04 stating the Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions “a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea” citing Cf. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The invention instead relies on the application of a new abstract idea – that is the visualization of pathogen tracing and corresponding risk factors. Applicant’s assertion that “the present specification makes it clear that the presently claimed invention addresses a technological problem arising from the inability of conventional systems to efficiently navigate and interpret extremely large, automatically generated sematic knowledge bases” is not only unfounded in the prior art, but also never stated in the instant application at the time of filing.
Applicant then asserts that the “threshold-controlled graph modification is a computer operation” and thus an improvement to computers. Examiner is not persuaded. Updating a graphical model based on a modification is not an operation unique to computers – the use of electronic means for performing the abstract idea is not enough to overcome Step 2A Prong 1 (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 FED. REG. 4 (January 7, 2019) at p. 8 footnote 54 further citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316-18 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where the electronic implementation of human activity was not adequate to overcome Step 2A Prong 1) nor does the application of the threshold to alter the graph improve how a computer functions.
Applicants asserts that the navigation specific tools as a whole “provides a specific improvement to computer functionality by enabling efficient navigation and manipulation of a large, dynamically generated semantic graph”. As established above, node/edge graph navigation and manipulation tools are established in the software arts prior to the instant application’s effective filing date and the novelty of the abstract idea applied to an established graphical user interface does not amount to an improvement to technology.
Applicant then asserts again that the instant claims are similar to Data Engine Techs LLC v Google and Trading Technologies Int Inc.. Examiner has addressed the case law multiple times in the response dated 02/06/2026 citing the previous discussion in Examiner’s action dated 09/11/2025.
Finally, Applicant then asserts that the user interaction does not mere rearrange information already displayed, but instead “modifies the subset of recommendation tuples represented within the network web”. Examiner sustains that this does not meaningfully change the analysis. Selected specific data to be displayed is an abstract idea. The selection of what pathogen related data sets to communicate to a user does not functionally change the computer operations, but merely instructs the display of a data on a conventional interface.
Applicant then asserts under Step 2B that the instant claims recite a nonconventional arrangement of computer-implemented operations relying on the novelty of the identified abstract idea as evidence of the non-generic “architecture” of the display. Examiner is not persuaded. The consideration under Step 2B is if the additional elements, alone or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field – the novelty of the abstract idea is not considered relevant under the Step 2B analysis. Here, the additional elements, alone or in combination, amount to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014).
Finally, Applicant asserts that the maintenance of the recommendation tuples and associated evidentiary metrics requires significantly more than collecting information and displaying results. Examiner is unpersuaded. The use of a computer to store data, retrieve data, or display data is all conventional activity that does not amount to meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claimed arrangement of evidence-derived recommendation tuples selectively represented according to a threshold-controlled relationship filtering is not a unique arrangement of additional elements but merely the application of a novel abstract to an established computer environment.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the “Claim Interpretation” and “Specification Discussion of Problem” (Examiner presumes as a continuation of the rejection under 35 USC 101) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Examiner has oversimplified the pending claims by reducing them to the concepts of displaying information or organizing human activity (Examiner presumes under Step 2A Prong 1). Applicant then reiterates the claim that the instant claims amount to an improvement to technology. Examiner has already responded to the arguments under Step 2A Prong 2 above and directs Applicant to the above paragraphs accordingly. Next, under Step 2A Prong 1, Examiner is not persuaded as displaying data that is “filtered, included, excluded, emphasized, or de-emphasized dynamically” is not abstract in nature. There is no technical detail regarding the operational features of the display that enables this behavior, only the outcome of said display behavior, which is by the very definition of “apply it”. Examiner points to Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue was the social activity of "’providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity.’" 896 F.3d at 1344, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (citing Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 193 F. Supp.3d 1184, 1188 (W.D. 2014)). The patentee claimed an attention manager for acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content. 896 F.3d at 1339-40, 127 USPQ2d at 1555. The Federal Circuit concluded that "[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea," observing that the district court "pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention." 896 F.3d at 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d at 1559. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(c).
Applicant then asserts that the specific outlines a technical problem. Examiner disagrees. Each of the presented technical improvements have been addressed by Examiner in previous actions (see at least ¶ 0038-41 of the Final Action mailed 05/14/2026). Applicant merely outlines the steps of the abstract idea and their support in the specification regarding the amendments. The specification does not address a problem in the prior art regrading OR an unconventional technical solution in any of the noted sections. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art (MPEP § 2106.05(a)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Carroll et al., Visualization and analytics tools for infectious disease epidemiology: A systematic review, 51 J of Biomedical Informatics 287-298 (Oct. 2014) teaching on the state of the art for epidemiology network web visualization tools in the § 3.4.3.Socialnetworkanalysis on p. 292-293
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN LYNN JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM ET.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights