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
This action is in reply to the application filed on 05/12/2025.
In a preliminary amendment, claims 1-20 were canceled. Claims 21-40 were added.
Claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been examined.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it appears similar to a recitation of a claim. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 21-40: Step 1
Claims 21-39 are drawn to a tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium storing instructions executed by one or more processors for providing recommended sequence of pharmaceuticals to administer to patient(s) using AI that incorporate expert knowledge, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claim 40 is drawn to a method for providing recommended sequence of pharmaceuticals to administer to patient(s) using AI that incorporate expert knowledge, which is within the four statutory categories, which is within the four statutory categories, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process).
Claims 21-40: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 40 recites obtaining, patient data associated with a current patient condition, the patient data comprising a set of values; determining, with the computer system, a plurality of normalized differences between the values of the patient data and respective target criteria to produce a normalized patient state; inputting, for each of a plurality of pharmaceutical-specific models, at least a portion of the normalized differences, wherein each model corresponds to a different class of pharmaceuticals; predicting, respective changes in the condition of the patient responsive to the corresponding class of pharmaceuticals on corresponding physiological status of the patient; determining, an aggregate score for each respective class of pharmaceuticals among the different classes of pharmaceuticals based on the set of predicted patient response; selecting, based on the aggregate scores, candidate classes of pharmaceuticals for an updated prescription; inputting, the candidate classes into an expert system to evaluate a plurality of rules of a rule-graph and, in response determining, an updated prescription; and storing, the updated prescription in memory. Claim 21 recites similar limitations.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing personal behavior by manually following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. But for the recitation of generic computer components, these limitations encompass a user obtaining, patient data associated with a current patient condition, the patient data comprising a set of values; determining, with the computer system, a plurality of normalized differences between the values of the patient data and respective target criteria to produce a normalized patient state; inputting, for each of a plurality of pharmaceutical-specific models, at least a portion of the normalized differences, wherein each model corresponds to a different class of pharmaceuticals; predicting, respective changes in the condition of the patient responsive to the corresponding class of pharmaceuticals on corresponding physiological status of the patient; determining, an aggregate score for each respective class of pharmaceuticals among the different classes of pharmaceuticals based on the set of predicted patient response; selecting, based on the aggregate scores, candidate classes of pharmaceuticals for an updated prescription; inputting, the candidate classes into an expert system to evaluate a plurality of rules of a rule-graph and, in response determining, an updated prescription; and storing, the updated prescription in memory. These steps could be carried out manually by a user following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Claim 21 recites similar limitations.
Claims 22-39 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the recitation of generic computer components, Claim 22 further defines obtaining updated patient data and determining normalized differences. Claims 23-24 further define patient data. Claim 25 further defines training at least one of the pharmaceutical-specific models. Claim 26 further defines translating a dosage of a given class of pharmaceuticals to a corresponding dosage of another class of pharmaceuticals. Claim 27 further defines determining the normalized differences. Claim 28 further defines presenting a warning derived from filters or rules. Claim 29 further defines determining suitability of the respective class of pharmaceuticals and determining a priority of the respective class of pharmaceuticals. Claims 30, 34 and 39 further define the plurality of rules. Claim 31 further defines comparing a first value of a patient attribute. Claim 32 further defines producing the normalized patient state. Claim 33 further defines selecting the updated prescription. Claims 35 and 36 further define the candidate classes of pharmaceuticals. Claim 37 further defines presenting a recommended updated prescription. Claim 38 further defines predicting respective changes in the condition of the patient. Therefore, these claims are similarly drawn to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 21-40: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas along with insignificant, extra-solution data gathering activity, and adding limitations similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. Claim 21 recites additional elements of “tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium” storing instructions that when executed by one or more “processors”, and executed by a “computer system” effectuate operations. Claim 40 recites additional elements of a computer system.
Claims 21-40, directly or indirectly, recite the following generic computer components: “computer system”, “processors” and “tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium” which are similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. The written description discloses that the recited computer components encompass generic components including “Computing system 1000 may include one or more processors (e.g., processors or a multi-processor system including any number of suitable processors) coupled to system memory 1020, an input/output I/O device interface 1030, and a network interface 1040 via an input/output (I/O) interface 1050. A processor may include a single processor or a plurality of processors (e.g., distributed processors). A processor may be any suitable processor capable of executing or otherwise performing instructions” (see at least Paragraph [0083]) and “In some embodiments, the functionality of the process 50 and the other functionality described herein, with the exception of administering treatments, may be implemented as computer code stored in a tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium and executable on one or more processors, such that when that computer code is executed, the corresponding functionality is effectuated“ (see at least Paragraph [0075]). Although the additional element “artificial intelligence” limits the identified judicial exceptions, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (artificial intelligence), and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05 (h). As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claims 21-40: Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). As explained above, the generic computer components are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception.
Receiving and transmitting data over a network (i.e. receiving and communicating data or signals) has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of a general-purpose computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result has also been found to be insufficient to show an improvement to technology, (see MPEP 2106.05(a) and TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48).
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, the high-level recitation of an output of results also fails to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The most remarkable prior art of record is as follows:
Gogolak: U.S. Patent U.S. 9,129,084 B2
Cao et al.: U.S. Patent U.S. 9,530,095 B2
Fung et al.: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2011/0202486 A1
Gaweda et al.: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2013/0085772 A1
Athey et al.: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2020/0135337 A1
Kutzko et al.: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2020/0273578 A1
Koren et al., Machine Learning Of Big Data In Gaining Insight Into Successful Treatment Of Hypertension, Phamacol Res Perspect, 24 April 2018, Pages 1-6
Wanger et al., “Algorithms for optimizing drug therapy, ”BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2004 July 20; 4:10. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-4-10. PMID: 15265240: PMCID: PMC493275
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joy Chng whose telephone number is 571.270.7897. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, JASON DUNHAM can be reached on 571.272.8109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Joy Chng/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights