DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/18/2025 has been entered.
3. Claims 1, 8 and 16 have been amended; claims 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17,18 and 20-24 have been canceled. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 16 and 19 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
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, 3, 8, 11, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-One:
Considering each of claims 1, 8 and 16 as representative claims, the current claims recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering claim 1, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
determine a resiliency score for an individual based on the performance of the individual on an assessment, the resiliency score indicative of the overall mental and physical status of the individual and based on a plurality of sub-values each respectively assigned to one of a plurality of categories of physical and mental health tested in the assessment;
a plurality of exercises, each exercise of the plurality of exercises associated with one or more of the categories of physical and mental health;
generate a customized physical and psychological profile for the individual based on the resiliency score, and
create a personalized stress management program for the individual based on the customized physical and psychological profile that includes a subset of the plurality of exercises, the stress management program including exercises directed to both physical and mental health, wherein an execution order of the subset of the plurality of exercises is based on the customized physical and psychological profile;
[engage] support community via meetings with other individuals executing stress management programs;
simultaneously [present]: the resiliency score, the plurality of sub-values upon which the resiliency score is based, and information from the profile indicating strengths and weaknesses contributing to each of the plurality of sub-values;
monitor continually a subsequent performance of the individual in following the created stress management program, including the performance of at least one of the subset of the plurality of exercises by the individual, as reflected in data received from the individual and,
adjust the profile, the resiliency score, the plurality of sub-values and the information from the profile indicating strengths and weakness contributing to each the plurality of sub-values as the result of monitoring the performance of the individual in following the exercises in the created stress management program as reflected in the received data, and
adjust the subset of exercises in the stress management program based upon results of the individual in performing the exercises in the subset of the plurality of exercises as indicated in the received data,
simultaneously [show] the adjusted resiliency score, the adjusted plurality of sub-values and the adjusted information from the profile indicating strengths and weakness contributing to each of the adjusted plurality of sub-values, and wherein the performance by the individual of at least one of the adjusted subset of exercises is monitored.
— Considering claim 8, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
determine a resiliency score for an individual undergoing an assessment of a physical and mental status of the individual, the resiliency score indicative of the overall mental and physical status of the individual and based on sub-values each respectively assigned to one of a plurality of categories of physical and mental health tested in the assessment;
generate a customized physical and psychological profile for the individual based on the resiliency score;
create a personalized stress management program for the individual based on the customized physical and psychological profile that includes a subset of a plurality of exercises, the subset of the plurality of exercises in the stress management program including exercises directed to both physical and mental health, an execution order of the subset of the plurality of exercises based on the customized physical and psychological profile;
[engage] support community via meetings with other individuals executing stress management programs;
simultaneously [present]: the resiliency score, the plurality of sub-values upon which the resiliency score is based, and information from the profile indicating strengths and weaknesses contributing to each of the plurality of sub-values;
monitor continually for data from the individual, the data relating to a subsequent performance of the individual in following the created stress management program, including the performance of at least one of the subset of the plurality of exercises by the individual as indicated in the data; and
adjust, the profile, the resiliency score, the plurality of sub-values upon which the resiliency score is based, and the information from the profile indicating strengths and weakness contributing to each of the plurality of sub-values as a result of monitoring of the performance of the individual in following the exercises in the created stress management program as indicated in the data, and adjust the subset of exercises in the stress management program based upon results of the individual in performing the exercises in the subset of the plurality of exercises as indicated in the data,
wherein the adjusted resiliency score, adjusted sub-values and the adjusted information from the profile indicating strengths and weakness contributing to each of the adjusted sub-values are simultaneously displayed, wherein the performance by the individual of at least one of the adjusted subset of exercises is monitored.
— Considering claim 16, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
determine a resiliency score for an individual undergoing an assessment of a physical and mental status of the individual, the resiliency score indicative of the overall mental and physical status of the individual and based on sub-values each respectively assigned to one of a plurality of categories of physical and mental health tested in the assessment;
generate a customized physical and psychological profile for the individual based on the resiliency score;
create a personalized stress management program for the individual based on the customized physical and psychological profile that includes a subset of a plurality of exercises, the subset of the plurality of exercises in the stress management program including exercises directed to both physical and mental health, an execution order of the plurality of exercises based on the customized physical and psychological profile;
[engage] support community via meetings with other individuals executing stress management programs;
simultaneously [present]: the resiliency score, the plurality of sub-values upon which the resiliency score is based, and information from the profile indicating strengths and weaknesses contributing to each of the plurality of sub-values;
monitor continually for data from the individual, the data relating to a subsequent performance of the individual in following the created stress management program, including the performance of at least one of the subset of the plurality of exercises by the individual as indicated in the data; and
adjust, the profile, the resiliency score, the plurality of sub-values upon which the resiliency score is based, and the information from the profile indicating strengths and weakness contributing to each of the plurality of sub-values as a result of the monitoring of the performance of the individual in following the exercises in the created stress management program as indicated in the data, and
adjust the subset of exercises in the stress management program based upon results of the individual in performing the exercises in the subset of the plurality of exercises as indicated in the data,
wherein the adjusted resiliency score, adjusted plurality of sub-values and the adjusted information from the profile indicating strengths and weakness contributing to each of the adjusted plurality of sub-values are simultaneously displayed, and wherein the performance by the individual of at least one of the adjusted subset of exercises is monitored.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
The current claims correspond to managing personal behavior, or an evaluation, wherein an individual is provided with an assessment, so that the mental and physical status of the individual is estimated—in the form of one or more scores—based on the response(s) that the individua is providing; and wherein one or more recommendations (e.g. personalized stress management program that includes exercise recommendations) are presented to the individual in order to improve the individual’s mental and/or physical conditions, including providing the individual with access to support community; and wherein the individual’s progress is continually monitored—such as, determining, based on data being collected regarding the individual, whether the individual is
performing one or more of the recommended exercises, etc.; and furthermore, updated information (e.g., updated scores, etc.) is presented to the individual based on the monitoring, etc.
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-Two
The claims recite additional elements, wherein a computing device(s) with one or more processors, an interface, a database, a network, and also a non-transitory computer-readable medium, etc., are utilized to facilitate the recited steps/functions regarding: enabling an individual to connect to a network in order to access an online assessment; determining a resiliency score for the individual based on the performance of the individual on the online assessment; storing a plurality of exercises; generating a profile, including customized physical and psychological profile for the individual; creating—based on the customized physical and psychological profile—a personalized lifestyle stress management program for the individual; presenting a continuously available visual dashboard; enabling access to an online support community via online meetings; displaying information (e.g. simultaneously displaying the resiliency score, the plurality of sub-values, strengths and weaknesses contributing to each of the plurality of sub-values); continually monitoring a subsequent performance of the individual in following the created lifestyle stress management program; adjusting data (e.g. adjusting the profile, the resiliency score, etc.); adjusting the subset of exercises in the stress management program; displaying simultaneously adjusted data elements, wherein the performance by the individual of at least one of the adjusted subset of exercises is monitored, etc.
However, the claimed additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Thus, when each claim is considered as a whole, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since they fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The above observation confirms that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions. Accordingly, when each claim is considered as a whole, none of the claims recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an “inventive concept”.
It is also worth noting, per the original disclosure, that the claimed invention is directed to a conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements. For instance, the disclosure describes one or more commercially available conventional computing devices (e.g., a laptop, a desktop PC, a tablet, etc.); and the conventional computing device(s) is arranged to communicate with a server over a conventional communication network (e.g., the Internet); and thereby the computing device(s) allows a user(s) to participate in online activities; such as a lifestyle management program, and/or stress management program, etc. (e.g., see [0042] to [0049] of the specification).
In addition, the utilization of the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate interactions between a user(s) and a service provider(s), including the process of providing a question(s) to the user regarding one or more health conditions and generating—based on the evaluation of a response(s) received from the user—one or more results (e.g. a health score; a recommended exercise and/or diet, etc.), is directed to a conventional, routine and well-known activity in the art (e.g. see US 2004/0267565; US 2004/0181432; US 2007/0185391, etc.).
The observations above confirm that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 3, 11 and 19). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each of the dependent claims is directed to a further abstract idea. Accordingly, none of the current claims is implementing a claim element—or a combination of claim elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims involves an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement, etc.).
► Applicant’s arguments directed to section §101 have been fully considered (the argument filed on 06/18/2025). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, while attempting to summarize the claimed limitations, including a section from the specification (e.g. [0003]), Applicant asserts that “[a]s noted in Applicant's specification, ‘The technological breakthroughs that have revolutionized society and made individuals accessible to their employers and friends twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred sixty-five days a year have come at great physical and mental cost to many individuals’ . . . paragraph [0003]). These round-the-clock stress factors require a round-the-clock solution which is what is provided (via the claimed computing components) in Applicant's claimed online platform. As further noted in Applicant's specification: ‘By providing continuing and updated assessments of stress factors the stress management program provides dynamic feedback which may be utilized by an individual to achieve a healthy and well-balanced lifestyle.’ (Applicant's published application, paragraph [0022])” (emphasis added).
However, Applicant appears to be mistaking the alleged benefit, which the claimed/disclosed online platform is providing to the user, as a technological improvement. Note that the claimed/disclosed online platform may arguably help users to manage their stress—such as: (a) providing one or more assessments (e.g., one or more questions in the form of surveys, etc.) to a user in order to gather mental and/or physical issues related to the user; (b) analyzing the collected information in order to identify a relevant exercise(s) pertinent to alleviate the user’s stress; (c) providing a recommendation to the user regarding an exercise(s) to be performed; (d) monitoring, based on the report that the user is providing, whether the user is performing the recommended exercises; (e) presenting the user with one or more updates based on the monitoring, etc. Of course, providing such service to the user around the clock may be arguably beneficial to the user. However, this does not necessarily imply a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. This is because the underlying technology, which the claimed/disclosed online platform is utilizing, is the existing computer/network (e.g., the Internet) technology. Particularly, due to its availability around the clock, the existing Internet technology is used to facilitate various activities, including: accessing online health services, accessing online entertainments, accessing online education, etc. Accordingly, the claimed/disclosed online platform, which utilizes the existing computer/network technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate a stress management service, does not provide a technological improvement. Of course, due to the lack of technological improvement above, none of the current claims—when considered as a whole—integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. Consequently, Applicant’s conclusory assertions, “Applicant's claimed invention improves (as of the application's priority date) the field of remotely delivered medical services. The computing components (acknowledged as additional elements in the OA, page 6) that help to provide the online platform claimed by Applicant serve to integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application” (emphasis added), are not persuasive.
Applicant also appears to emphasize the alleged round-the-clock service, which the claimed/disclosed online platform is supposedly providing, in order to substantiate the alleged technological improvement. For instance, Applicant is asserting that “[b]y being available 24/7/365 to receive and act on updated data transmitted by the individual to the platform, the platform provides a continuous level of care that no individual doctor or team of doctors can match in providing customized care that is continually updated for current conditions and takes into account the individual's historical treatment and current condition. The suggestion that the computing components are merely tools to facilitate the abstract idea fails to appreciate the timing/availability aspects of the invention. That is the online platform, made possible by the additional elements/computing components, provides a level of service that was simply not available by individual medical providers, practices or hospitals as they couldn't match the availability to, and/or recorded knowledge of, the individual while delivering care remotely at any time of the day or night” (emphasis added).
However, such use of the existing computer/network technology to provide round-the-clock service to a user, including a stress management service, has nothing to do with technological improvement. If anything, it only signifies a concept that one considers in order to make a given service available around the clock. For instance, a healthcare expert may consider a concept—such as, a plan to provide users with helpful information around the clock based on the analysis of data (e.g., survey responses, user feedback, etc.) collected from each of the users. Although it is possible to setup one or more physical locations (e.g., one or more physical healthcare centers, etc.) in order to provide such service, the expert recognizes that such physical locations may not be that helpful due to geographical limitations and/or travel requirements, etc. Of course, the expert also recognizes that the existing computer/network technology (e.g., the Internet) already provides various services to users around the clock. Accordingly, the expert utilizes the existing computer/network technology—as a tool—to facilitate the above concept; namely, a round-the-clock service that provides users with helpful information (e.g., one or more recommendations to alleviate stress level, etc.) based on the analysis of data collected from each of the users (e.g., survey responses collected from users regarding their mental and/or physical issues, etc.). However, such use of the existing computer/network technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate the above concept (i.e., an abstract idea) does not constitute a technological improvement. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Secondly, regarding the claimed additional elements, Applicant asserts, “[a]ll of the monitoring and adjusting limitations for example are implemented via the additional elements/computing components (and those monitoring and adjusting limitations for example could not practically be performed without the additional elements in the continual manner claimed by Applicant). Rather than being ancillary to a general concept of stress management, these additional elements make possible an always available online platform for stress management that had no corollary at the time of filing. These are meaningful limits that improve the technical field of remote medical management of a patient and thus serve to integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application” (emphasis added).
However, Applicant appears to misconstrue the test that one must apply per prong-two of Step 2A. Note that the issue is not whether the claimed/disclosed online platform requires the additional elements; rather, the issue is whether the claimed/disclosed online platform provides any technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. For instance, the existing Internet technology already allows one to perform various tasks remotely, including providing a round-the-clock service to users (e.g., entertainment service, educational service, medical service, etc.). Accordingly, due to the above fact, the claimed/disclosed platform is also utilizing this existing computer/network technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate the claimed (and the disclosed) abstract idea (e.g., see above the abstract idea identified under prong-one of Step 2A). However, except for using this existing technology—as a tool—to facilitate the abstract idea, neither the current claims nor the original disclosure as a whole implements an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over this existing technology. Of course, the lack of technological improvement above also confirms that none of the current claims implement an element—or a combination of elements—that imposes meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Consequently, Applicant’s attempt to substantiate the alleged eligibility of the current claims, while emphasizing the use of the additional elements, is also not persuasive.
Applicant further asserts, “the additional elements in the claims apply or use the asserted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a medical condition (stress). Section 2106.04(d)(2) of the MPEP . . . the ‘treatment’ for stress management is the physical and mental exercises being prescribed and performed, monitored and adjusted. This treatment is delivered over a network via the additional (computing) elements acknowledged in the OA which serve to integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. These physical and mental exercise treatments are very much akin to the application of the drug in Vanda Pharm . . . In the instant case, a portion of the treatment for stress is prescribed and functionally delivered over the network as a set of exercises as Applicant's claims also recite limitations that only occur (e.g. the monitoring and subsequent adjustment of the program) based on the exercises actually being performed . . . claim 1 recites in part ‘monitor continually a subsequent performance of the individual in following the created stress management program including the performance of at least one of the subset of the plurality of exercises by the individual as reflected in data received from the individual that is transmitted at any time via a client computing device’ and ‘wherein the performance by the individual of at least one of the adjusted subset of exercises is monitored.’ Independent claims 8 and 16 recite corresponding features” (emphasis added).
However, unlike Applicant’s assertion above, none of the current claims correspond to a claim that applies/uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). Of course, the disclosed/claimed objective of the online platform is assumed to be stress management; however, neither the current claims nor the original disclosure as a whole implements an element—or a combination of elements—that qualify as a “particular” treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Instead, the core of the claimed/disclosed system is a platform that provides users with information (e.g., one or more exercises to be performed), based on the analysis of subjective inputs that users are providing (e.g., subjective inputs in the form of: responses to survey questions, feedback, etc.). Consequently, Applicant’s assertions above, namely Applicant’s attempt to portray the current claims as a “particular” treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not persuasive. Particularly, regardless of Applicant’s assumption regarding the alleged round-the-clock service, the use of the existing computer/network technology—merely as a tool—to provide information to users does not integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application.
In addition, again unlike Applicant’s assertion, none of the current claims are analogous to any of the patent-eligible cases, including Vanda. For instance, unlike the current claims, Vanda implements limitations that integrate the abstract idea (if any) into a patent-eligible practical application. In particular, the claimed method involves not only performing a particular laboratory procedure (e.g., genotyping assay) to analyze the patient’s genotype, but also administering a particular medication (iloperidone) to the patient in a dose range that depends on the result obtained from the laboratory procedure above (e.g., based on the result that indicates whether the patient’s genotype is associated with poor drug metabolism). Thus, Vanda indeed implements limitations that impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In contrast, none of the Applicant’s claims implement a limitation—a combination of limitations—that impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Particularly, the claimed/disclosed process of providing information to a user (i.e., information regarding: one or more customized exercises to be performed; one or more performance scores, etc.), based on the alleged continuous monitoring, which relies merely on a subjective response(s) that the user is providing at his/her will, certainly does not constitute integration of the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. Consequently, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant has also attempted to challenge the Office’s previous remark. Applicant asserts, “Applicant's claims require more than the presentment of information as they
also require a performance of at least one of the exercises which triggers an adjustment of the exercises (i.e. further treatment). In the field of stress management, the performance of the exercise is very much akin to the drug administration in Vanda” (emphasis added).
However, Applicant appears to fail to notice that the claimed/disclosed online platform is merely providing information to the user based on a subjective response(s) that the user is providing at his/her will. Even the alleged adjustment of the exercises, which is itself merely updated information, is based on a subjective input that the user is providing at his/her will. Thus, the fact above remains true regardless of whether the user is performing the recommended exercises or not. In contrast, Vanda is a real medical treatment, which administers to the user a real medication (iloperidone) with a specific dosage; and wherein, the dosage of the medication is determined based on a laboratory analysis of a physical biological sample taken from the user (e.g., genotyping assay). Thus, unlike Applicant’s assertion, Vanda is not even remotely analogous to any of the current claims.
Applicant is also misapplying the test to determine whether the claim is reciting a mental process (prong-one of Step 2A). Applicant asserts, “Applicant respectfully
disagrees that the claimed invention could be performed as a mental process without the aid of the claimed computing components (OA, page 14-19). The test as to whether the claimed invention could be performed as a mental process is whether it could practically be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A)). The availability component of the invention which requires both continual non-stop monitoring and adjustment of the score components and exercises based on the continual monitoring for data transmitted at any time prevents the monitoring and adjusting aspects from practically being performed in the human mind” (emphasis added).
However, unlike Applicant’s assumption above, the computing components, which are part of the additional elements, are not considered when identifying the abstract idea—such as a mental process—that the claims are reciting. Moreover, a human—such as a clinician—can continually monitor, mentally and/or using a pen and paper, the user’s physical and/or mental conditions. For instance, while permitting the user to continually interact with the clinician daily, the clinician may record, based on responses that the user is providing (e.g., the user informing the clinician regarding the exercises that the user has performed; and/or the clinician asking the user questions regarding the exercises that the user has performed, etc.), one or more recommended exercises (if any) that the user has performed; and furthermore, based on evaluating the responses/feedback that the user is providing, the clinician provides (e.g., via verbal interaction, and/or via a piece of paper) the user with one or more updated/adjusted exercises to be performed, etc.
Thus, besides the analysis presented in the previous office-action (e.g., see pages 15-18 of the office-action dated 12/18/2024), the observation above also confirms that the current claims do recite a mental process. Consequently, unlike Applicant’s assertion, it is immaterial whether the claims recite “computing components”; this is again because the claimed—and the disclosed— computing components are directed to the existing computer/network technology, which is used—merely as a tool—to facilitate the claimed (and the disclosed) abstract idea.
Thus, at least for the reasons discussed above, the Office concludes that none of the current claims—when considered as a whole—implement an inventive concept that amounts to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
Prior Art
● Considering each of claims 1, 8 and 16 as a whole (including their respective dependent claims), the prior art does not teach or suggest the invention as currently claimed (regarding the state of the prior art, see the office-actin dated 11/25/2019).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. 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.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715