DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This action is in reply to a request for continued examination (“RCE”) field 3 November 2025, on an application filed 4 December 2020, which is a continuation of application 14/257855 (issued as U.S. Patent 10,886,016), which is a continuation of application 13/877059 (issued as U.S. Patent 8,706,530), which is a national stage filing of PCT/US2011/053971 filed 29 September 2011, and claims domestic priority to provisional applications filed 29 September 2010 and 9 June 2011.
Claims 2, 25, 27 and 28 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 18, 19 and 26 have been amended.
Claim 29 has been added.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13, 18-20, 26 and 29 are currently pending and have been examined.
The Office has determined that independent claims 1 and 29 comprise novel material. Accordingly, the prior art rejections of claims 1, 3-11, 13, 18-20, 26 29 have been removed.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: the unnecessary inclusion of a hyphen after the term represent in the automatically receive limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-11, 13, 18-20 and 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 3-11, 13, 18-20, 26 and 29 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1, 3-11 and 13 are drawn to a computer implemented method for automatically acquiring and publishing a masked composite numerical score reflecting the health of the patient, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 18-20, 26 and 29 are drawn to a health monitoring system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 25 recites: A health monitoring system comprising:
a communication unit operable to receive data on at least one intrinsic medical parameter and at least one extrinsic physical activity parameter of a user;
a memory arranged to store the received data and to store weighting factors;
at least one processor arranged to process the received data by executing code that configures the at least one processor to:
automatically receive, from a communication subsystem, a sensor, or a digital measurement device, data associated with a respective health-related event, wherein the data represent- at least one intrinsic medical parameter and at least one extrinsic physical activity parameter of a user;
storing the received data in a memory;
identify respective weighting factors stored in a memory respectively associated with the at least one intrinsic medical parameter and the at least one extrinsic physical activity parameter of the user;
assigning a respective value for each of the at least one intrinsic medical parameter and the at least one extrinsic physical activity parameter of the user;
determining a respective decay component to reduce a relative weight of the at least one extrinsic physical activity parameter based on at least one factor associated with the user;
transforming the received data into a masked composite numerical value of the user by:
modifying, by applying at least one of the respective weighting factors, at least one respective value assigned for at least one intrinsic medical parameter;
modifying, by applying a respective decay component, a respective weighting factor for at least one extrinsic physical activity parameter;
modifying, by applying the modified respective weighting factor, at least one value assigned for at least one extrinsic physical activity parameter; and
combining the modified at least one value assigned for the at least one intrinsic medical parameter and the modified at least one value assigned for the at least one extrinsic physical activity parameter in accordance with an algorithm;
automatically publishing the masked composite numerical value to a designated group via a portal, free of human intervention, while maintaining the received data representing the at least one intrinsic medical parameter and the at least one extrinsic physical activity parameter private;
generating, by applying a predictive algorithm using at least some of the received data, a predictive masked composite numerical value, which is indicative of a predicted future state, wherein generating the predictive masked composite numerical value includes:
modifying at least one intrinsic medical parameter and/or at least one extrinsic physical activity parameter in the received data;
assigning a respective value for each of the modified at least one intrinsic medical parameter and/or the modified at least one extrinsic physical activity parameter of the user;
modifying, by applying at least one of the respective weighting factors, at least one value assigned for the modified at least one intrinsic medical parameter;
modifying, by applying the respective decay component, a respective weighting factor for the modified at least one extrinsic physical activity parameter;
modifying, by applying the modified respective weighting factor, at least one value assigned for the modified at least one extrinsic physical parameter; and
combining the modified at least one value assigned for the modified at least one intrinsic medical parameter and the modified at least one value assigned for the modified at least one extrinsic physical activity parameter in accordance with an algorithm;
automatically providing a predictive feedback communication that includes the predictive masked composite numerical value;
automatically receiving new health-related data associated with a health-related event and automatically updating, based on the new health-related data associated with the health-related event, the masked composite numerical value of the user;
providing the updated masked composite numerical value of the user, the predictive masked composite numerical value of the user, a plurality of other masked composite numerical values, and a plurality of other predictive masked composite numerical values, wherein each of the other masked composite numerical values and each of the other predictive masked composite numerical values is respectively associated with individuals of the designated group;
monitoring the masked composite numerical value over time, including determining, by the at least one processor, a no-activity status based on a lack of data input associated with the user;
automatically providing a feedback communication based on the no-activity status or on a change in the masked composite numerical value over time; and
displaying to the user, via the portal, the masked composite numerical value of the user, the plurality of other masked composite numerical values, a predicted change in the masked composite numerical value of the user, and a predicted change in each of the plurality of other masked composite numerical values.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract ideas of “mathematical concepts” and/or the abstract idea of a mental process and/or a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite
a mathematical concept (in this case, combining values), or using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. the dispensing device and the one or more processors) and/or a process managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case the assigning of values to a user’s intrinsic medical parameter and extrinsic physical activity parameter in order to determine a masked composite numerical value and a predictive masked composite numerical value that can be published while maintaining the user’s intrinsic medical parameter and extrinsic physical activity parameter as private, which would comprise following rules or instructions), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea(s) are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for claim 1 is identical as the abstract idea for claim 29, because the only difference between claims 1 and 29 is that claim 1 recites a method whereas claim 29 recites a system.
Dependent claims 3-11, 13, 18-20 and 26 include other limitations, for example claim
26 applies the decay component, claim 3 processes the masked composite numerical value, claim 4 provides and processes an extrinsic modified lifestyle parameter, claims 5-11 and 20 processes and communicates data, and claim 13 provides processing of a metabolic equivalent, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, any limitations in dependent claims 3-11, 13, 18-20 and 26 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea, and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent claims 3-11, 13, 18-20 and 26 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 29.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1, 3-11, 13, 18-20, 26 and 29 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the structural components of the computer, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see pgs. 6-7 of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data gathering, data publishing, data storage, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and/or insignificant application (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, dependent claims 3-11, 13, 18-20 and 26 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the recitation of the remote user device and monitoring unit of claims 18 and 19), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1 and 29, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 3-11, 13, 18-20, 26 and 29 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the structural components of the computer), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity comprises limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
Pages 6-7 of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the structural components of the computer) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receive and process data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives data, processes the data, and publishes data; and
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Dependent claims 1, 3-11, 13, 18-20, 26 and 29 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1 and 29, and/or the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the recitation of the remote user device and monitoring unit of claims 18 and 19), and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1, 3-11, 13, 18-20, 26 and 29 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 28 May 2026 concerning the statutory rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are considered persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments filed 28 May 2026 concerning the statutory rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues on pages 10-13 that the claims are improperly rejected under 101 because the recite limitations that goes beyond a judicial exception. The Applicant cites various limitations from the claims and “asserts that the claimed subject matter provides technical improvements over conventional systems by processing, generating, and providing the above-identified information for across a plurality of users and substantially in real-time as updated health-related data are received.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. Please see the statutory rejection of the claims, issued above, that indicate that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more.
The statutory rejection of the claims show that the recited elements are either part of the abstract idea or are directed to additional limitations that fail to amount to significantly more. The cited elements are indicated as being either part of the judicial exception or are directed to additional material that do not amount to significantly more, either alone or in combination with the other elements.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Here, the Examiner cannot find, nor has the Applicant identified, any technological problem that was caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined.
Accordingly, the statutory rejection is upheld.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
12 June 2026
Prosecution Insights