www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/462,285
`
`08/31/2021
`
`KRISHNA PRASAD AGARA VENKATESHA RAO
`
`SYP339826US01US
`
`5248
`
`CHIP LAW GROUP
`505 N. LAKE SHORE DRIVE
`SUITE 250
`CHICAGO, IL 60611
`
`HRANEK, KAREN AMANDA
`
`3684
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`12/23/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`docketing @chiplawgroup.com
`eofficeaction @appcoll.com
`sonydocket @evalueserve.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-20 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C} Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
`(] Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)7) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20241216
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`17/462,285
`RAOetal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`KAREN A HRANEK
`3684
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 13 November 2024.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/462,285
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined underthefirst
`
`inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and
`
`103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103)is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for
`
`the rejection will not be considered a new groundofrejectionif the prior art relied upon, and the rationale
`
`supporting the rejection, would be the same undereitherstatus.
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
`
`3.
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forthin 37 CFR
`
`1.17(e), wasfiled in this application after final rejection. Since this applicationis eligible for continued
`
`examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee setforth 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 11/13/2024 has been entered.
`
`Status of the Claims
`
`4.
`
`The status of the claims as of the responsefiled 11/13/2024is as follows: Claims 1-3 and 5-20
`
`are currently amended. Claim 4 is original. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application and have
`
`been considered below.
`
`Rejection Under 35 USC 101
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`5.
`
`The claims have been amended but the 35 USC 101 rejections are upheld.
`
`Rejection Under 35 USC 103
`
`6.
`
`The amendments made to the claims introducelimitations that are not fully addressed in the
`
`previousoffice action (e.g. creating an encrypted session betweenfirst and second Al models to sync-
`
`up), and thus the corresponding 35 USC 102/108 rejections are withdrawn. However, Examinerwill
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/462,285
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 3
`
`consider the amendedclaimsin light of an updated prior art search and addresstheir patentability with
`
`respectto prior art below.
`
`Rejection Under 35 USC 101
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`7.
`
`On page 16 of the responsefiled 11/13/2024 Applicant argues that the independent claims do not
`
`recite an abstract idea because “the claimed features are inextricably tied to a machine” (emphasis
`
`Original), and specifically points to the limitations reciting a processorandafirst Al model performing
`
`various functions such as determining health indicators, generating inference data, syncing-up models,
`
`etc. Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but are not persuasive. Aclaim maystill recite an abstract
`
`idea evenif it includes computer or other machine components; that is, even if the claim requires generic
`
`hardware (e.g. a computer processor), if the claimed functions (e.g. evaluating data and making
`
`determinations)are still something that could be achieved by a human actor managing their personal
`
`behavior and/or interacting with others and the hardware componentsare only used astools with which to
`
`digitize and/or automate the process, the claims maystill be directed to an abstract idea.In the instant
`
`case, Examiner maintains that the functions of collecting first data, determining one or morefirst
`
`indicators using the collectedfirst data, generating first inference data, determiningafirst requirement to
`
`visit a healthcare center, determining user-related data, transmitting the user-related data to a healthcare
`
`system associated with the healthcare center, and syncing-up different clinical models by transmitting
`
`data may be performed as a certain methodof organizing humanactivity because a humanactoris
`
`capable of collecting and evaluating data to make medical determinations in accordancewith established
`
`clinical models and communicate relevant data to otherentities, e.g. for follow-up appointmentsor to
`
`share updates to appropriate clinical models. The computer hardware and Al models are then separately
`
`evaluated as additional elements in Step 2A — Prong 2 and Step 2B to determineif they integrate the
`
`recited abstract idea into a practical application or provide “significantly more” than the abstract ideaitself.
`
`8.
`
`On pages 16-19 of the response Applicant argues that the independent claims integrate any
`
`recited abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to “an improvement to an existing
`
`technology with respect to systems and end user applications for effectively determining the requirement
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/462,285
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 4
`
`for which the useris required to visit a healthcare center and transferring user-related data to an
`
`electronic healthcare system associated with the healthcare center, and thereby, preventing lossof
`
`information related to health of the user throughout a course of consultation.” Applicant further submits
`
`that “the claimed system enables the healthcare centers to provide an improved quality of medical
`
`assistance to the user, as the system and the nodesof the network maintain holistic information on the
`
`health condition, medical records, prescriptions, medical tests, and treatments of the user.” Applicant’s
`
`argumentsare fully considered, but are not persuasive. The use of high-level computer hardware and Al
`
`models as currently recited in the claims does not appear to provide a technical solution to a technical
`
`problem; rather, they amount to the words “apply it” with a computer because they merelydigitize and/or
`
`automate otherwise-abstract functions like making medical determinations and communicating
`
`information. Examiner maintains that no technical improvementis provided to a specific technicalfield,
`
`and instead the business operation of evaluating and sharing medicalinformation is merely being
`
`implemented with high-level computing and Al components to provide alleged improvements in access to
`
`information without solving any specific technicallimitations of conventional data sharing architectures.
`
`The cited portions of the specification provide no evidence that existing clinical systems are subject to any
`
`technical impediments that prevent access to and maintenanceofholistic information for use in making
`
`medical determinations, and instead appearto indicate that loss of information may be incurred by
`
`inefficient workflows throughout the business practice of medical care. Examiner notes that that per
`
`MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea
`
`onacomputerdoes not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive
`
`concept.” Applicant has not provided any evidence that the implementation of the abstract idea with
`
`computing components provides any technical improvements beyond the improved speedor efficiency
`
`inherent with applying clinical data analysis and sharing in a computing environment.
`
`9.
`
`On page 19 of the response Applicant argues that the combination of features of the independent
`
`claims are not well-understood, routine, or conventional and thus provide an inventive concept. However,
`
`Applicant does not point to any specific limitations that are alleged to be unconventional. Accordingly,
`
`Applicant’s arguments amount to a mere allegation of patentability and are unpersuasive. Examiner
`
`maintains that the additional elements of the claims, even when considered in combination, do not
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/462,285
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 5
`
`amountto “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself under Step 2B; see paras. 37-40 below for a
`
`complete analysis underthis consideration.
`
`For the reasonsoutlined above, the 35 USC 101 rejections are upheld for claims 1-20.
`
`Rejection Under 35 USC 103
`
`10.
`
`On pages 19-20 of the response Applicant argues that Bitran does not teach the newlyintroduced
`
`limitation directed to creating an encrypted session betweenfirst and second Al models and syncing-up
`
`the first and second Al models. Applicant’s argumentsare fully considered, but are moot because the
`
`new groundof rejection does notrely on any reference appliedin the prior rejection of record for any
`
`teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
`
`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 improvementthereof, may obtaina patent
`therefor, subjectto the conditions and requirementsofthis title.
`
`Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to
`
`an abstract idea without significantly more.
`
`Step1
`
`11.
`
`In the instant case, claims 1-14 are directed to a method(i.e. a process), claims 15-19 are
`
`directed to a system (i.e. a machine), and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable
`
`storage medium (i.e. a manufacture). Thus, each of the claimsfalls within one of the four statutory
`
`categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
`
`Step 2A-—Prong 1
`
`12.
`
`Independent claims 1, 15, and 20 recite steps that, under their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing humanactivity, e.g. managing personal behavior,
`
`relationships, or interactions between people. Specifically, each claim recites:
`
`training a first artificial intelligence (Al) model based on a training dataset;
`
`collecting first data associated with a user, wherein the collectedfirst data compriseshistorical
`
`health data and a set of sensor data, and the sensor data correspondsto a set of health-monitoring
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/462,285
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`parameters;
`
`Page 6
`
`applying the first Al model on the collectedfirst data;
`
`determining one or morefirst indicators based on the application of the firstAl model, wherein the
`
`one or morefirst indicators correspond to a deviation in a health condition of the user with respect to
`
`reference values, and a confidence score associated with the firstAl model;
`
`determining the deviation in the health condition of the user based on the confidence score;
`
`generating first inference data based on the determined one or more first indicators, wherein the
`
`first inference data comprises one or more labels associated with a cause of the deviation;
`
`determining, based on the generatedfirst inference data, a first requirement associated with a
`
`first visit by the userto a first healthcare center;
`
`determining, based on the collectedfirst data and thefirst inference data, a first set of user-
`
`related data associated with the determinedfirst requirement;
`
`transmitting, via a communication network, the determinedfirst set of user-related data toafirst
`
`electronic healthcare system, wherein thefirst electronic healthcare system is associated withthefirst
`
`healthcare center;
`
`creating a first encrypted session betweenthe first Al model and a second Al model;
`
`syncing-up the first Al model with the second Al model based on thefirst encrypted session; and
`
`transmitting, via the communication network, thefirst set of user-related data and weights
`
`associated witha plurality of nodes to the second Al model, wherein the transmissionofthefirst set of
`
`user-related data and the weights associated with the plurality of nodes is based on the sync-up of the
`
`first Al model with the second Al models, and the plurality of nodes is associated with the first Al model.
`
`13.
`
`But for the recitation of generic computer components like a processor, an Al model, and an
`
`electronic system, the italicized functions, when considered as a whole, describe a medical evaluation
`
`interaction that could take place between various humanentities of a patient’s care team, e.g. the patient
`
`and one or more medical professionals. For example, a clinician could collect historical data and sensor
`
`data values from a patient during an appointmentor otherinteraction, and the clinician could analyze the
`
`received information with a simple model(e.g. a scoring checklist, a decision tree, a regression model,
`
`etc.) to compute indicators that reflect a deviation in a health condition (e.g. higher than normal blood
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/462,285
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 7
`
`pressure) along with their confidence in the prediction and attribute a cause to the deviation(e.g.
`
`underlying cardiovascular conditions). The clinician could then determine an appropriate schedule for
`
`follow-up or referral appointments for the patient, and generate a summary of user-related data to review
`
`at follow-up appointments and/or send to a referred clinician or colleague. Finally, the clinician could
`
`communicate with a colleague, researcher, or other entity with access to a second modelso that features
`
`of the first model may be shared or synced up with a second model, thereby allowing the colleague to
`
`utilize the most up-to-date diagnostic model. Thus, the steps recited in these claims describe the various
`
`interactions between a patient and one or more medical professionals, and accordingly claims 1, 15, and
`
`20 recite an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing humanactivity.
`
`14.
`
`Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 inherit the limitations that recite an abstract idea from their
`
`dependence onclaims 1 and 15, respectively, and thus these claims also recite an abstract idea under
`
`the Step 2A — Prong 1 analysis. In addition, claims 2-8, 10-13, and 16-18 recite furtherlimitations that
`
`merely further describe the abstract idea identified in the independentclaims.
`
`15.
`
`Specifically, claims 2-4 and 16 specify particular types of collected data, each of whicha clinician
`
`would be capableofsoliciting and analyzing during a medical appointment.
`
`16.
`
`Claim 5 recites determining a current location of the user, determining one or more
`
`recommendations comprising one or more healthcare centers, wherein the one or more healthcare
`
`centers includesthefirst healthcare center, are associated with the first requirement, and are within a
`
`threshold distance from the current location. A clinician could achieve these steps by observing a
`
`patient’s location or asking them where theylive and providing referral recommendations within a
`
`threshold distance of the location.
`
`17.
`
`Claim 6 recites receiving a first input that comprisesa first selection of thefirst healthcare center
`
`and a secondselection of a schedule for an appointmentwith the first healthcare center, and scheduling
`
`the first visit to the first healthcare center based on the receivedfirst input, wherein thefirst set of user-
`
`related data is transferred to thefirst healthcare system based on the scheduling of thefirst visit to the
`
`first healthcare center. Such operations could be achieved as part of a certain method of organizing
`
`humanactivity by a clinician soliciting facility and appointment time selections from a patient, scheduling a
`
`follow-up orreferral appointment based on the selections, and sending the patient summary to the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/462,285
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 8
`
`selected healthcare system in accordance with the scheduled appointment(e.g. in advance of the
`
`appointment).
`
`18.
`
`Claim 7 recites transmitting a specific request based on a determination that a current location of
`
`the useris different from a location of thefirst healthcare center and receiving an authorization, which a
`
`clinician could achieve by communicating with a colleague or otherfacility to request and authorize
`
`specific types of consultations based on a user’s knownlocation with respectto a facility.
`
`19.
`
`Claims 8 and 18 recite applying the second model onthefirst set of user-related data, generating
`
`a set of presentation data based on the application of the second modelonthefirst set of user-related
`
`data, wherein the set of presentation data includes datapoints which are required by a medical
`
`practitioner associated with the first healthcare center, which a clinician could achieve by using the
`
`updated second model to summarize important/relevant information for referral to a colleague.
`
`20.
`
`Claim 10 recites detecting a presenceof the userat the first healthcare center and collecting,
`
`based on the detection of the user, medical data associated with a medical attention received by the user
`
`at the first healthcare center as part of the determinedfirst requirement, and updating the first model
`
`based on the collected medical data, which could be achieved as a certain method of organizing human
`
`activity by a clinician observing that a patient has arrived at a healthcare facility and collecting medical
`
`data from the patient during an appointment, which may then be used to update any diagnostic models
`
`the clinician uses.
`
`21.
`
`Claim 11 recites applying thefirst model on the collected medical data and the collectedfirst data
`
`to generate second inference data, determining, based on the generated secondinference cata, a
`
`second requirement associated with a secondvisit by the user to a second healthcare centerdifferent
`
`from thefirst healthcare center, determining, based on the collected first data, the collected medical data,
`
`and the second inference data, a second setof user-related data which is associated with the determined
`
`second requirement and is required by a second healthcare center, and transferring the determined
`
`second setof user-related data to the second healthcare system. These operations could be achieved as
`
`part of a certain method of organizing humanactivity by a clinician collecting additional patient data at a
`
`second appointment, determining another appropriate referral, summarizing relevant data for the referral,
`
`and communicating the summary to the referral targetfacility.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/462,285
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 9
`
`22.
`
`Claim 12 recites determining that the determinedfirst requirement corresponds to a medical
`
`emergency, determining a second healthcare center based on a current location of the user and the
`
`determination that the determinedfirst requirement corresponds to the medical emergency, scheduling an
`
`emergency responseservice, and transferring, based on the scheduled ER service, thefirst set of user-
`
`related data to the second healthcare center. These operations could be achieved as part of a certain
`
`method of organizing human activity by a clinician determining that the current patient is experiencing a
`
`medical emergency, deciding that the current clinic location is not equipped to handle such an
`
`emergency, scheduling an ER appointmentor transfer to a more well-equippedfacility, and
`
`communicating a summaryof patient data relevant to the emergencysituation to the transfer facility.
`
`23.
`
`Claim 13 recites transmitting an alert notification to one or moreentities registered for receiving
`
`the alert notification, based on the determination that the first requirement correspondsto the medical
`
`emergency, which could be achieved by a clinician by contacting registered friends or family of the patient
`
`in the event of an emergency.
`
`24,
`
`Claim 17 recites substantially similar subject matter as claims 5-6, and is consideredto recite an
`
`abstract idea underthe analysis for claims 5-6 above.
`
`25.
`
`However, recitation of an abstract idea is not the end of the analysis. Each of the claims must be
`
`analyzed for additional elements that indicate the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application to
`
`determine whether the claim is considered to be “directed to” an abstract idea.
`
`Step 2A - Prong 2
`
`26.
`
`The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent
`
`claims 1, 15, and 20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract ideainto a practical
`
`application. Each of the independentclaims include the additional element oftraining a firstartificial
`
`intelligence (Al) model based on a training dataset; use of the A/modelto determine the oneor morefirst
`
`indicators, transmitting the determinedfirst set of user-related data specifically via a communication
`
`networkto a first electronic healthcare system, and creating a first encrypted session betweenthefirst Al
`
`model and a second Al modelto sync-upthefirst and second A/ models. Claim 15 further includes the
`
`additional element of a processor configured to achieve the various functions, while claim 20 includes the
`
`additional element of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configuredto store instructions
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/462,285
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 10
`
`that, when executed by a computer ina system, causes the computer in the system to perform the
`
`various operations.
`
`27.
`
`These additional elements, when considered in the context of each claim as a whole, merely
`
`serve to automateordigitize interactions that could occur between humanactors (as described above),
`
`and thus amountto implementation of an abstract idea on generic computer components. For example, a
`
`Clinician is capable of determining indicators corresponding to a deviation in a health condition for a user
`
`and aconfidence score, and thetraining and useofafirst artificial intelligence modelrecited at a high
`
`level of generality (i.e. with no specific architecture, training methods, description of the training dataset,
`
`inputs mapped to outputs, methodsof updating, etc. claimed) to achieve this function merely automates
`
`an otherwise-abstract function. Similarly, members of a patient care team are capable of collecting,
`
`evaluating, and communicating or sharing data, and the use of processors or computer systems to
`
`achievethese functions and transfer data specifically to an electronic healthcare system via a
`
`communication network merely digitizes these otherwise-abstract operations. Finally, clinicians,
`
`researchers, or other professionals are able to share information about their diagnostic procedures and
`
`models so that they may be appropriately updated or synced-up, and the creation and use ofafirst
`
`encrypted session directly between thefirst and second Al models to achievethis function is considered
`
`to merely digitize/automate such otherwise-abstract data sharing and model updating steps. Accordingly,
`
`these generic computer elements are merely invoked as tools with which to digitize or automate medical
`
`interactions, and amount to mereinstructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP
`
`2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 1, 15, and 20 as a whole are each directed to an abstract idea without
`
`integration into a practical application.
`
`28.
`
`The judicial exception recited in dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 is also not integrated into a
`
`practical application under a similar analysis as above.
`
`29.
`
`Claims 2-4, 10-12, and 16 are performed with the same additional elements identified in the
`
`independentclaims without introducing new additional elements, and accordingly do not provide
`
`integration into a practical application.
`
`30.
`
`Claims 5, 8, 17, and 18 recite the additional elementof controlling a user device associated with
`
`the userto display data, which merely digitizes the output of recommendation or other patient information
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/462,285
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 11
`
`at a generic user device and thus amounts to the words “apply it” with a computer.
`
`31.
`
`Claims 6 and 17 specify that data inputs are received at the user device, which similarly amounts
`
`to the words “apply it” with a computer because a generic user device is being utilized as a tool with
`
`which to digitize the input or solicitation of information.
`
`32.
`
`Claim 7 recites establishing a virtual reality (VR)-based consultation session between a user
`
`device and a wearable electronic device worn by a mecical practitioner and transferring the user-related
`
`data to the wearable electronic device while the VR-based consultation is active. These additional
`
`elements similarly amount to the words “ap ply it’ with a computer because high-level computing elements
`
`like an unspecified user device and wearable electronic device are being utilized as tools with which to
`
`digitize otherwise-abstract user communication and data sharing operations.
`
`33.
`
`Claims 8-9 and 18-19 include use of the second Al modelto generate the setof presentation
`
`data, which amounts to the words “apply it’ with a computer becausea high-levelartificial intelligence
`
`model (i.e. with no specific architecture, training methods, description of the training dataset, inputs
`
`mappedto outputs, methods of updating, etc. claimed) is merely being utilized to digitize and/or automate
`
`the otherwise-abstract step of summarizing pertinent healthcare information.
`
`34.
`
`Claim 13 recites transmitting the alert notification specifically to one or more devices, which are
`
`recited at a high level of generality and merely digitize the otherwise-abstract step of data sharing such
`
`that they amount to the words “apply it” with a computer.
`
`35.
`
`Claim 14 recites receiving, by a user device, a request to share a data portion of the collected first
`
`data with the first Al model, creating a second encrypted session between the first Al model and the user
`
`device based on the request, transferring, based on the second encrypted sessionis active, the data
`
`portion of the collectedfirst data to first Al model, and storing the transferred data portion in an encrypted
`
`form onadatastore. These additional elements are consideredinsignificant extra-solution activity
`
`because they nominally describe methodsfor establishing communication betweenusers and storing
`
`data that appear to be tangential to the crux of the invention.
`
`36.
`
`Accordingly, the additional elements of claims 1-20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a
`
`practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
`
`Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/462,285
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 12
`
`Step2B
`
`37.
`
`The claims do notinclude additional elements that are sufficient to amountto significantly more
`
`than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respectto integration of the abstract idea into a
`
`practical application, the additional elements of processor-based computer systems, trained artificial
`
`intelligence models, user devices, a communication network, electronic healthcare systems , and
`
`creation/establishment of encrypted communication sessions used for performing the collecting, applying,
`
`determining, generating, transmitting, syncing-up, etc. steos of the invention amount to no more than
`
`mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As evidence of the generic
`
`nature of the aboverecited additional elements, Examiner notes the following portions of Applicant's
`
`specification:
`
`-
`
`[0042]: “The user device 106 mayinclude suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code....
`
`Examplesof the user device 106 mayinclude, but are not limited to, a wearable health device
`
`(such as a fitness band), a smartphone, a cellular phone, a mobile phone, a personal
`
`computer, a workstation, a kiosk device that may be associated with the set of sensors 1342,
`
`ora consumerelectronic (CE) device that may be interfaced with or associated with the set of
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`sensors 132”.
`
`[0052]: “the server 128 may be implemented as a plurality of distributed cloud-based
`
`resources by use of several technologies that are well knownto those ordinarily skilled in the
`
`art”;
`
`[0177]: “The processor 1204 may be implemented based on a numberof processor
`
`technologies Knownin the art”;
`
`[0180]: “The networkinterface 1212 may be implemented by use of various Known
`
`technologies to support wired or wireless communication of the system 102 with the
`
`communication network 134”:
`
`[0205]: “A computer system or other apparatus adapted to carry out the methods described
`
`herein may be suited. Acombination of hardware and software may be a general-purpose
`
`computer system with a computer program that, when loaded and executed, may control the
`
`computer system suchthatit carries out the methods described herein.”
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/462,285
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 13
`
`38.
`
`These disclosures showthat oneof ordinary skill in the art would understand that known
`
`computerand electronic t