Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 09/12/2025.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim.
Claim 7 recites instruction not steps. Claim 2 recites a method consists of a series of actions. Claim 7 can be infringed by possessing the disk and not performing the actions of claim 2. Thus, this is fails the infringement test (MPEP 608.01 (n)).
Claim 8 recites instruction not steps. Claim 4 recites a method consists of a series of actions. Claim 8 can be infringed by possessing the disk and not performing the actions of claim 4. Thus, this is fails the infringement test (MPEP 608.01 (n)).
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 1-8 are directed to a system, a method and a non -transitory computer readable medium which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea:
stores, in the content information memory, medical content information viewable or browsable on a Web site and tag information classifying the medical content information to be associated with each other,
stores, in the user behavior information storage, user behavior information that associates user identification information, the tag information corresponding to the medical content information viewed or browsed by a user identified by the user identification information, and a number of times of viewing or browsing per the tag information with one another,
stores, in the user attribute information storage, user attribute information that associates the user identification information and attribute information including viewing/browsing situation information of the medical content information viewed or browsed by the user with each other,
normalizes the number of times of viewing or browsing per the tag information to represent a frequency of viewing or browsing by the user;
applies factor analysis processing to the user behavior information after the normalizing to calculate a predetermined number of common factors;
calculates a factor score of the user behavior information after the normalizing based on the predetermined number of common factors per the user identification information, and detects one of the common factors having a highest score as a user characteristic of the user identified by the user identification information;
integrates the user attribute information and the user characteristic based on the user identification information, and generates user integrated information used for attribute analysis by multivariate analysis of an event of satisfying a predetermined viewing or browsing situation with respect to the medical content information viewed or browsed by the user;
with respect to the user integrated information, identifies, by multivariate analysis, an item of the attribute information including the viewing/browsing situation information of the medical content information viewed or browsed by the user, the item of the attribute information contributing to the event of satisfying the predetermined viewing or browsing situation suggesting that the user is deeply interested in the medical content information viewed or browsed by the user; and
based on the user integrated information, extracts the user identification information having a predetermined user characteristics and satisfying a condition of the item of the attribute information that has been identified;
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of a computer with one or more hardware processors coupled to a memory (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer components) and a database (e.g. a generic computer component).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
stores, in the content information memory, medical content information viewable or browsable on a Web site and tag information classifying the medical content information to be associated with each other,
stores, in the user behavior information storage, user behavior information that associates user identification information, the tag information corresponding to the medical content information viewed or browsed by a user identified by the user identification information, and a number of times of viewing or browsing per the tag information with one another,
stores, in the user attribute information storage, user attribute information that associates the user identification information and attribute information including viewing/browsing situation information of the medical content information viewed or browsed by the user with each other,
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on one or more computers, or merely uses computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer with one or more hardware processors coupled to a non-transitory memory and configured to execute software instructions, and a database (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer component (S)). processing device comprising: a content information memory; a user behavior information storage; a user attribute information storage; and a central processing unit (CPU), to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). 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 the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on one or more computers, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraphs 48-50 of the applicant’s specification) and the affinity v Direct TV decision which states that a database is a generic computer component); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
stores, in the content information memory, medical content information viewable or browsable on a Web site and tag information classifying the medical content information to be associated with each other,
stores, in the user behavior information storage, user behavior information that associates user identification information, the tag information corresponding to the medical content information viewed or browsed by a user identified by the user identification information, and a number of times of viewing or browsing per the tag information with one another,
stores, in the user attribute information storage, user attribute information that associates the user identification information and attribute information including viewing/browsing situation information of the medical content information viewed or browsed by the user with each other,
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 2-4 , 7-8.
The dependent claims 5-6 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the user identification information which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 5); further limiting the factor related to the user characteristics which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 6), and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No)..
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-8 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitations of “ A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing instructions that cause a computer to execute the method according to claim 2”. However, claim 2 recite “An information processing method for an information processing device that comprises:…”. It is unclear if Applicant is referring to the same information processing device or a different computer. Appropriate correction and / or clarification is required. For the purpose of this examination the claimed computer is interpreted as an information processing device.
Claim 8 recites the limitations of “ A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing instructions that cause a computer to execute the method according to claim 4”. However, claim 4 recite “An information processing method for an information processing device that comprises:…”. It is unclear if Applicant is referring to the same information processing device or a different computer. Appropriate correction and / or clarification is required. For the purpose of this examination the claimed computer is interpreted as an information processing device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kenedy et al, US Pub No: 20210209134 A1.
As per claims 1-4 and 7-8, Kenedy teaches:
stores, in the content information memory, medical content information viewable or browsable on a Web site and tag information classifying the medical content information to be associated with each other ( see at least paragraph 25 (the present invention is designed to utilize correlations between pangenetic attributes of users of the World Wide Web (WWW or web) and the feedback and behaviors they express with respect to web items (objects and content of the web) to improve the relevancy of web items retrieved (e.g . memory) and/or recommended for future users. More specific applications include those within the healthcare field involving medical information retrieval for diagnosis and treatment of patients whose pangenetic attributes are known);
stores, in the user behavior information storage, user behavior information that associates user identification information, the tag information corresponding to the medical content information viewed or browsed by a user identified by the user identification information, and a number of times of viewing or browsing per the tag information with one another ( see at least paragraph 35 (The attribute profile of an individual, which can be a pangenetic profile, a non-pangenetic profile or a hybrid (combined) attribute profile containing both pangenetic and non-pangenetic attributes, is preferably provided to embodiments of the present invention as a dataset record whose association with the individual can be indicated by a unique identifier contained in the dataset record. An actual attribute of an individual can be represented in data form as an attribute descriptor in attribute profiles, records, datasets, and databases);
stores, in the user attribute information storage, user attribute information that associates the user identification information and attribute information including viewing/browsing situation information of the medical content information viewed or browsed by the user with each other (see at least paragraph 38 (attribute profile of an individual, which can be a pangenetic profile, a non-pangenetic profile or a hybrid (combined) attribute profile containing both pangenetic and non-pangenetic attributes, is preferably provided to embodiments of the present invention as a dataset record whose association with the individual can be indicated by a unique identifier contained in the dataset record); paragraph 43 ( pangenetic attributes of a user (or another individual for whom the user is performing a web search on behalf of) are used as a secondary means of selecting and ranking webpages. In this particular approach, webpages can be initially retrieved based on user queried keywords or topics, and then pangenetic_IDs that were previously stored in the lexicon and document index datasets can be used to compute pangenetic based scores for the respective webpages they are associated based on matches with the pangenetic profile of the user);
normalizes the number of times of viewing or browsing per the tag information to represent a frequency of viewing or browsing by the user (see at least paragraph 43 (The pangenetic score can then be normalized to any scale, for example, a scale of 1 to 10 as used by the ranking system of one prominent web search engine. Following normalization, it is possible to generate a consolidated score by combining the pangenetic score with an IR score, a PageRank or a final SERP rank by averaging, weighted averaging or other mathematical computations known to those of skill in the art. In one embodiment, the resulting composite score can be used as a final rank for determining the selection and ordering of one or more webpages in the SERP.The associated pangenetic_IDs can be identified and counted for each webpage and then compared to the pangenetic profile of the user to determine the number of pangenetic hits (i.e., quantity of pangenetic matches) that the pangenetic profile has for each webpage. The total number of pangenetic hits recorded between the user's pangenetic profile and a webpage can be divided by the total count of pangenetic word_IDs associated with the webpage to produce a pangenetic score in the form of percent match, for example);
applies factor analysis processing to the user behavior information after the normalizing to calculate a predetermined number of common factors; calculates a factor score of the user behavior information after the normalizing based on the predetermined number of common factors per the user identification information, and detects one of the common factors having a highest score as a user characteristic of the user identified by the user identification information ( see at least paragraph 43 ( The pangenetic score can then be normalized to any scale, for example, a scale of 1 to 10 as used by the ranking system of one prominent web search engine. Following normalization, it is possible to generate a consolidated score by combining the pangenetic score with an IR score, a PageRank or a final SERP rank by averaging, weighted averaging or other mathematical computations known to those of skill in the art. In one embodiment, the resulting composite score can be used as a final rank for determining the selection and ordering of one or more webpages in the SERP);
integrates the user attribute information and the user characteristic based on the user identification information, and generates user integrated information used for attribute analysis by multivariate analysis of an event of satisfying a predetermined viewing or browsing situation with respect to the medical content information viewed or browsed by the user (see at least paragraph 35 ( statistical relationships and associations between pangenetic and non-pangenetic attributes as determined by the methods disclosed herein are a direct result of relationships and associations between actual attributes of an individual, including behavioral attributes they exhibit (e.g., online computing and web surfing behaviors);
With respect to the user integrated information, identifies, by multivariate analysis, an item of the attribute information including the viewing/browsing situation information of the medical content information viewed or browsed by the user, the item of the attribute information contributing to the event of satisfying the predetermined viewing or browsing situation suggesting that the user is deeply interested in the medical content information viewed or browsed by the user ( see at least paragraph 30 ( an IR score, the above search engine can compute a page ranking score using an algorithm which evaluates the quantity and quality of inbound hyperlinks of each webpage. The higher the quality and quantity of the inbound hyperlinks pointing to a webpage, the higher the page ranking score will be for that webpage. The search engine combines the hyperlink-based page ranking score with the IR score to derive a final rank for a webpage which determines whether that webpage will be listed in the Search Engine Results Page (SERP), and where in the listing it will appear based on its rank relative to other webpages listed in the SERP); paragraph 44 (the user is able to indicate to the search engine which group of results in the SERP they are more satisfied with. This user feedback can be used by the search engine in subsequent searches to further refine the results by learning what best meets the needs of the user. For example, if the user prefers the results obtained using pangenetic attribute matching, then the search engine can forego the presentation of webpages based solely on non-pangenetic keywords and only present webpage links on the SERP that were selected and ranked, at least in part, based on pangenetic attributes associated with user and the pangenetic attributes associated with webpages);
based on the user integrated information, extracts the user identification information having a predetermined user characteristics and satisfying a condition of the item of the attribute information that has been identified (see at least paragraph 27 ( Individual differences in taste, smell, and color perception, as well as preferences for certain types of melodies and instrument tonalities in music and particular thematic subject matter in movies and books, are associated with and can be extracted from our genetic and epigenetic makeups); paragraph 39 ( Data for determining correlations can also be derived from consumer purchasing behavior at bricks-and-mortar stores by analyzing frequent shopper (club member) card data and/or credit card purchase history data, also through passive filtering. Once correlations are determined, they can be stored in a database and later accessed to extract information that can be used to predict an individual consumer's online behavior, preferences, and feedback based on their pangenetic attributes alone or in combination with non-pangenetic attributes of the consumer such as demographics);
As per claims 5-6, Kendey teaches :
based on the user identification information that has been extracted, executes at least one of: issuing an event participation guidance to the user, and placing an advertisement for the user (see at least paragraph 67 (In addition to being used for providing item recommendations to users, the disclosed inventions can also be used to predict which online offerings (i.e., webpage items) a user will ultimately choose to interact with or purchase. As such, the methods, systems, databases and software of the instant disclosure can be used for generating predictions of user behavior and user purchases. As previously described, the items represented in a user based item feedback matrix such as that of FIG. 2, or a pangenetics based item feedback matrix such as that of FIG. 3, can be internet based (internet accessible) items such as webpages, webpage links, and webpage offerings including advertisements, products, services and information content, for example);
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Neumann, US Pub No: 20230400912 A1 teaches A system for using artificial intelligence to analyze user activity data, the system comprising a computing device configured to receive from a user, at least a biological extraction and at least a user activity datum, determine a current user location, generate a diagnostic output as a function of the biological extraction, wherein the diagnostic output comprises a condition of the user, retrieve, from a fingerprint database, at least a datum of user fingerprint data, identify a plurality of compatible elements at the current user location as a function of the condition of the user, select at least a compatible element as a function of the fingerprint data, and present, via a graphical user interface, the at least a compatible element to a user device.
Bostic et al , US Pub No: 20200303047 A1 teaches A computerized method for healthcare data management generally includes forming, using the healthcare data system computing device, a digital twin of the individual patient based on the health information related to the individual patient, the digital twin of the individual patient being a digital representation of at least one health state of the individual patient; forming, using the healthcare data system computing device, a digital twin of the population of patients based on the health information related to the population of patients, the digital twin of the population of patients being a digital representation of at least one health attribute of the population of patients; and presenting, at the healthcare data system computing device, to a user of the healthcare data system the digital twin of the patient and the digital twin of the population of patients.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [M- R 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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 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.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights