DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 9/29/2025, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, 21, 22, 24, and 27 – 29 have been amended.
Claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 17, 19, 20, and 26 have been previously canceled.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 – 16, 18, 21 – 25, and 27 – 29 are pending.
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, 4, 6, 7, 10 – 16, 18, 21 – 25, and 27 – 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.
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a machine (claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 – 16, 18), a process (claims 21 – 25 and 27 – 29) which recite steps of
receive a plurality of values for a plurality of characteristics associated with the individual;
determine a plurality of normal ranges corresponding to the plurality of characteristics at least in part by establishing personal normal ranges specific to the individual by collecting and mapping the plurality of values over a time frame defined by respective testing protocols and data collection frequencies, wherein the establishing comprises:
storing initial values collected during a baseline period;
calculating statistical variations of the initial values collected within the baseline period; and
setting upper and lower bounds for each characteristic based on personal data of the individual rather than population normal ranges;
combine the plurality of values into a composite health index using a weighted algorithm, wherein the weighted algorithm:
applies a first weight to cardiovascular-related characteristics;
applies a second weight to metabolic-related characteristics;
applies a third weight to cognitive-related characteristics; and
calculates the composite health index as a weighted average of the plurality of values after applying the first weight, the second weight, and the third weight, wherein the composite health index provides a real-time representation of the health of the individual;
determine if change information indicative of a change in the composite health index satisfies a predetermined change condition, wherein the predetermined change condition comprises detecting when a rate of change of the composite health index over a defined time period exceeds a threshold rate while the plurality of characteristics remain within the population normal ranges, wherein the predetermined change condition, when satisfied, is indicative of a movement of the health of the individual towards dysfunction within at least one of the plurality of normal ranges before clinical symptoms manifest; and
generate a recommendation for an intervention or a treatment plan when the predetermined change condition is satisfied.
These steps of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 – 16, 18, 21 – 25, and 27 – 29 as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the processor language, determining in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. Similarly, the limitation of validated, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Please see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) for more information.
In addition, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) includes a discussion of what is meant by a mental process. The section includes:
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed “conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally,” i.e., “as a person would do it by head and hand.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of “translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit” are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims “read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper”). Mental processes performed by humans with the assistance of physical aids such as pens or paper are explained further below with respect to point B.
These steps of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 – 16, 18, 21 – 25, and 27 – 29, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner understands the claimed invention in light of the Specification. The Specification begins with:
TECHNICAL FIELD
[0001] The disclosure herein generally relates to a method and a processor for determining the health of an individual.
SUMMARY
[0027] Disclosed herein is a method for determining health of an individual.
[0028] In the context of this specification, health of the individual encompasses physical health of the individual, mental health of the individual and emotional health of the individual.
This is expanded upon at the end of the Specification with:
[0192] Embodiments may track and report the progress of the subject to the practitioner remotely via, for example, the internet, and in real-time. Alerts may be generated and send by the processor 10 for indications of illness. Data may be collected as to the efficacy of treatment protocols or the uptake of behavioural and lifestyle suggestions. Because all progress may be tracked on a longitudinal basis, the processor 10 may provide benefits for medical research.
Note that the invention is not directed toward a technological improvement or an improvement in a technical field. Further, the invention ends with information that only has a potential usage. The invention has no claimed and no disclosed practical application.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 – 16, 18, 22 – 25 and 27 – 29, reciting particular aspects of how determining may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of in a processor or by the processor amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of response to screening questions amounts to mere data gathering, , see MPEP 2106.05(g))
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as in a processor, see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 33, 4, 6, 7, 10 – 16, 18, 22 – 25 and 27 – 29, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform 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 a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 – 16, 18, 21 – 25, and 27 – 29; determining if change, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii))
Additional elements:
a processor comprising at least one microprocessor, a memory, and a communication interface – paragraphs 51 – 53
collection devices – paragraphs 54
instructions executable by the at least one microprocessor – paragraph 55 and 56
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 – 16, 18, 22 – 25 and 27 – 29, additional limitations which amount to, electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)). 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 a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims included, “wherein the validation comprises applying a diagnostic algorithm to correlate questionnaire responses with the composite health index.” There is no support for this limitation within the originally filed specification.
Claims 11 and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims included, “by calculating a derivative of the composite health index over the defined time period” There is no support for this limitation within the originally filed specification.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10 – 16, 18, 22 – 24, and 26 – 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Damani et al, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2014/0089836.
As per claim 1,
Damani teaches a system for determining health of an individual, the system comprising:
a processor for determining health of an individual (processor, paragraph 200 and Abstract for usage – figure 3),
the processor comprising at least one microprocessor, a memory, and a communication interface (figure 36 and paragraph 200),
wherein the memory comprises instructions executable by the at least one microprocessor
such that the processor is operable to:
receive, via the communication interface (figure 3),
a plurality of values for a plurality of characteristics associated with the individual from a plurality of computational devices operating in communication with the processor via the communication interface (figure 3 #102s and paragraphs 51, 52),
wherein the plurality of values are received from the plurality of computational devices in real-time (paragraph 52 real-time as it is entered);
determine a plurality of normal ranges corresponding to the plurality of characteristics at least in part by establishing personal normal ranges specific to the individual by collecting and mapping the plurality of values over a time frame defined by respective testing protocols and data collection frequencies, wherein the establishing comprises (figure 13):
storing initial values collected during a baseline period (paragraph 161 historic and current data);
calculating statistical variations of the initial values collected within the baseline period (paragraph 161 metric and figure 30 paragraph 198, percent change of health metrics); and
setting upper and lower bounds for each characteristic based on personal data of the individual rather than population normal ranges (paragraph 161 normal or expected values for the metric, and a status icon 1310 indicating whether the numerical value is good or bad – where the specific setting process is not claimed);
combine the plurality of values into a composite health index using a weighted algorithm that assigns different weights to the plurality of characteristics based on corresponding correlations with health outcomes (paragraphs 186 – 190 determining a grade – customize the parameters and points may be weighted),
wherein the composite health index provides a real-time representation of the health of the individual (paragraph 186 at any point during the patient’s participation);
combine the plurality of values into a composite health index using a weighted algorithm, wherein the weighted algorithm (paragraph 188 points system):
applies a first weight to cardiovascular-related characteristics (paragraph 189 – it should be noted that the “applies” does not say how that weight is applied, the value of the unknown weight, and whether the weight must be different from other weights);
applies a second weight to metabolic-related characteristics (paragraph 189 – it should be noted that the “applies” does not say how that weight is applied, the value of the unknown weight, and whether the weight must be different from other weights);
applies a third weight to cognitive-related characteristics (paragraph 189 – it should be noted that the “applies” does not say how that weight is applied, the value of the unknown weight, and whether the weight must be different from other weights); and
calculates the composite health index as a weighted average of the plurality of values after applying the first weight, the second weight, and the third weight, wherein the composite health index provides a real-time representation of the health of the individual (as shown on figure 25 total);
determine if change information indicative of a change in the composite health index satisfies a predetermined change condition (paragraphs 192 – 194 achieved outcomes or thresholds),
wherein the predetermined change condition comprises detecting when a rate of change of the composite health index over a defined time period exceeds a threshold rate while the plurality of characteristics remain within the population normal ranges (paragraphs 174 – 177, figure 19, 180 and table 11, health alert –– The Examiner understands this limitation within the Specification paragraph 147 where the rate of change is described as an individual value exceeding a threshold),
wherein the predetermined change condition, when satisfied, is indicative of a movement of the health of the individual towards dysfunction within at least one of the plurality of normal ranges before clinical symptoms manifest (The Examiner first notes that this is a statement of intent, “is indicative of” and is not a functional step. Further, the Specification provides no examples of what a dysfunction must be or could be – Paragraph 155 states that this is “biological or psychological” but the field is related to patient information); and
generate and output a recommendation for an intervention or a treatment plan when the predetermined change condition is satisfied (paragraphs 174 – 177 health alerts paragraph 196 and 197 outcomes - “a recommendation for an intervention” is the alert),
wherein the output is provided in real-time to allow for early intervention before the individual exhibits clinical symptoms (paragraph 176 and 180 The Examiner notes that the language following “to allow for…” represents an intended usage of the claimed invention).
As per claim 3, Damani the system of claim 1 as described above.
Damani further teaches the system wherein the predetermined change condition, when satisfied, is indicative of an abnormal health condition (figure 13, #1302 thumbs down #1314 red circle and paragraph 161) that would manifest as the clinical symptoms if untreated. (paragraph 16, An additional list of health-related genetics 1316 may also be provided on the health page along with an indicator 1318 as to whether the user has an elevated, decreased, normal or other level of risk for a particular genetic trait, be it a propensity for disease or simply a behavioral component related to the user's health, nutrition or fitness.).
As per claim 4, Damani the system of claim 3 as described above.
Damani further teaches the system wherein the abnormal health condition comprises a disease (paragraphs 88, 161, diabetes risk and 164).
As per claim 6, Damani the system of claim 4 as described above.
Damani further teaches the system wherein the memory further comprises instructions executable by the at least one microprocessor such that the processor is further operable to
execute a questionnaire in cooperation with a computational device of the plurality of computational devices (paragraph 71 assessment questionnaires. – It should be emphasized that the questionnaire can be independent of the disease. Further, that even if it related to the disease there is no validation that the answers are true or even useful) and
to validate that the individual has the disease using results from the questionnaire (paragraph 74 provides analytical results about the user's health and wellness, and paragraph 90 example of bone mass for elderly patients),
wherein the validation comprises applying a diagnostic algorithm to correlate questionnaire responses with the composite health index (paragraph 74 - Data on the user's health and wellness is collected from all of these data sources and then considered separately or in conjunction with one another in order to provide personalized
health and wellness programs with recommendations. –The Examiner understands this in view of Specification that doesn’t state what this means or how this is performed).
As per claim 10, Damani the system of claim 1 as described above.
Damani further teaches the system wherein the plurality of characteristics further comprise at least one of a biological characteristic associated with the cardiovascular-related characteristics, a physiological characteristic associated with the metabolic-related characteristics, a cognitive function characteristic associated with the cognitive-related characteristics, a behavioral characteristic, an environmental characteristic, a social characteristic, or an economic characteristic (paragraph 59 and figure 13 where “associated with” is not defined within the specification.).
As per claim 11, Damani the system of claim 1 as described above.
Damani further teaches the processor wherein the memory further comprises instructions executable by the at least one microprocessor such that the processor is further operable to determine the change information (paragraph 54, behavioral changes, paragraph 59 physiological changes, paragraph 154, medical changes) by calculating a derivative of the composite health index over the defined time period (paragraph 161 a numeric value for each metric).
As per claim 12, Damani the system of claim 1 as described above.
Damani further teaches the system wherein the memory further comprises instructions executable by the at least one microprocessor such that the processor is further operable to provide the individual with an online task to perform (paragraph 59, specific exercises).
As per claim 13, Damani the system of claim 1 as described above.
Damani further teaches the system wherein the memory further comprises instructions executable by the at least one microprocessor such that the processor is further operable to monitor usage patterns of a machine by the individual (paragraph 157, analyze it for patterns).
As per claim 14, Damani the system of claim 1 as described above.
Damani further teaches the system wherein the memory further comprises instructions executable by the at least one microprocessor such that the processor is further operable to electronically monitor a behavior of the individual (paragraph 66, pedometer or other exercise monitor).
As per claim 15, Damani the system of claim 1 as described above.
Damani further teaches the system wherein the memory further comprises instructions executable by the at least one microprocessor such that the processor is further operable to receive characteristic information indicative of at least one of an environmental characteristic, a value for a social characteristic, or a value for an economic characteristic (paragraph 66, environmental data relate to lifestyle).
As per claim 16, Damani the system of claim 1 as described above.
Damani further teaches the system wherein the plurality of characteristics include at least one of heart rate, heart rate variability, a respiratory indicator, respiration rate, respiratory rate variability, blood pressure, skin conductivity, temperature, blood oxygen saturation levels, weight, body mass, metabolic indicators, skin color, a physical movement characteristic, a brain activity characteristic, a heart activity characteristic, a vagal tone characteristic, and a hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis stimulation characteristic, a blood characteristic, a urine characteristic, a feces characteristic, a hair characteristic, a skin characteristic, a genetic characteristic, an epigenetic characteristic, sleep cycle characteristic, or a bone density characteristic (paragraph 59, heart rate).
As per claim 17, Damani the system of claim 1 as described above.
Damani further teaches the system wherein the plurality of values are weighted (paragraph 189, points may be weighted – how the values are weighted is not claimed).
As per claim 18, Damani the system of claim 1 as described above.
Damani further teaches the system wherein the individual is an animal, including a human being (paragraph 187).
As per claim 21,
Damani a computer-implemented method for determining health of an individual as described above in claim 1.
As per claim 22, Damani the method of claim 21 as described above.
Damani further teaches the method as described above in claim 3.
As per claim 23, Damani the method of claim 22 as described above.
Damani further teaches the method as described above in claim 4.
As per claim 24, Damani the method of claim 23 as described above.
Damani further teaches the method as described above in claim 6.
As per claim 26, Damani the method of claim 22 as described above.
Damani further teaches the method as described above in claim 5.
As per claim 27, Damani the method of claim 21 as described above.
Damani further teaches the method comprising determining the change information (paragraphs 174 – 177 The difficulty here is that the what the “change information” must be, how the “change information” should be calculated, or anything specific about the “change information” is not disclosed.).
As per claim 28, Damani the method of claim 21 as described above.
Damani further teaches the method comprising
monitoring usage patterns of a machine by the individual (paragraph 52) and
correlating the usage patterns with changes in the composite health index to identify behavioral indicators of health deterioration (figure 13 where “to identify” represents the intended usage of the usage patterns).
As per claim 29, Damani the method of claim 21 as described above.
Damani further teaches the method further comprising
electronically monitoring a behavior of the individual using motion sensors (paragraph 52, 96 step counters) and
correlating detected movement patterns with the rate of change of the composite health index (figure 13 and paragraphs 161 – 164).
Claims 7 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damani et al, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2014/0089836 in view of Madan et al., U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2014/ 0052465.
As per claim 7, teaches the system of claim 6 as described above.
Damani further teaches an initial assessment (paragraph 60) and an additional assessment (paragraph 63). Paragraphs 71 and 130 includes a health assessment questionnaire but the questions themselves are not disclosed.
Damani does not explicitly teach however, Madan teaches further teaches the method wherein the questionnaire comprises screening questions and further questions determined from the individual's response to the screening questions (paragraph 56 generic questions – information related to disease).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add these features into Damani. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have added these features into Damani with the motivation to support a patient associated with a health condition (Madan, paragraph 15).
As per claim 25, Damani the method of claim 24 as described above.
Damani in view of Madan further teaches the method as described above in claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, filed 9/29/2025, with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10-16, 18, 21-25, and 27-29 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10-16, 18, 21-25, and 27-29 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
A. Eligibility Step 1: The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter
B. Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception
No Mental Process
The Applicant states, “These specific technical operations were not previously presented and cannot be dismissed as mental processes.” The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s opinion.
The Applicant states, “The newly added limitations, such as … are all operations the human mind is not equipped to perform.” The Applicant is arguing that a pencil and paper cannot be used. However, the MPEP explicitly states that this can be used and the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion.
The Applicant further states, “The human mind cannot maintain and apply multiple category-specific weights while calculating weighted averages in real-time. These are inherently computational operations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind.” The Examiner has no opinion on the Applicant’s assertion. This is because the argument is based upon a purely mental operation which is not necessary.
No Method of Organizing Human Activity
The Applicant states, “The claims are directed to technical data processing, such as establishing personal baselines, applying weighted algorithms, and detecting rate changes, and not organizing human activities. The generation of health recommendations does not transform technical data analysis into human activity organization.” Later in the Applicant remarks, the Applicant states, on page 17,
This particular solution enables detection of health deterioration "before the individual exhibits clinical symptoms," as recited in the claims. The Applicant's specification confirms these improvements at ¶¶0193-0200, stating the embodiments "may be able to detect ill health on a very wide scale within the adaptive range ( or normal range for that individual), maybe before symptoms become apparent and maybe before a person is showing abnormalities within biomarker tests."
The relationship between the instant claimed invention and human activity is clear to the Applicant.
Integration into a Practical Application under Prong Two
The Applicant states, “The present disclosure addresses the specific problem that traditional health monitoring systems fail to detect deterioration while values remain within population normal ranges.” The Applicant’s argument leads back towards organizing human activity. The invention is directed towards providing more accurate data. That data has a potential application and not a practical application.
The Applicant states, “The Applicant's specification confirms these improvements at…” Applying the abstract idea to technology creates improvements because of applying the abstract idea to technology is expected. However, this is not a practical application or a technological improvement.
The Applicant states, “The present claims improve health monitoring technology through the specific technical architecture of personal baseline establishment, weighted multi-category analysis, and rate-of-change detection within normal ranges.” The Specification does not support the Applicant’s opinion. The disclosure does not describe the invention as a technical or technological improvement to a problem of technology.
C. Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More
The Applicant states, “Given the specific technical implementation, the impossibility of mental performance, and the technological improvements provided, this is not even a close call. The claims are clearly eligible.” The Examiner disagrees. The implementation is a applying the abstract idea to technology. There is a possibility of mental performance with the aide of pencil and paper. There are no disclosed or claim technological improvements. There is no level of uncertainty by the Examiner.
III. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10-16, 18, and 21-24are Patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Damani
Damani Fails to Anticipate Amended Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10-16, and 18
The Applicant states, “This three-step process creates personalized baselines unique to each individual.” The Applicant is reading into the claimed invention a narrower interpretation then required.
The Applicant states, “This is fundamentally different from the claimed invention.” The claim language is broadly written using functional terms. These functional terms are not supported by a narrower view within the Specification. The Examiner believes that the Applicant is requiring an interpretation that is not required and not supported.
The Applicant states, “The phrase "to allow for early intervention before the individual exhibits clinical symptoms" recites essential structure of the claimed invention.” The claim is directed towards a computer-implemented method where the structure is the computer. The Applicant’s opinion is noted. Other arguments directed towards an intended outcome requiring a not required structure are moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chavan et al., Pub. No.: US 2015/0126822 Embodiments relate to devices and methods for monitoring, identifying, and determining risk of congestive heart failure (CHF) hospitalization.
Damani et al., Pub. No.: US 2014/0089836 User-specific medical, genetic, fitness, environmental and nutritional data is collected to develop personalized health and wellness programs for improving a user's health and wellness.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Neal R Sereboff whose telephone number is (571)270-1373. The examiner can normally be reached M - T, M - F 8AM - 6PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571)272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/NEAL SEREBOFF/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626