DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
01. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
02. This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 02/04/2026. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the present application. This action is made FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
03. Applicant argues that not all claimed limitations are disclosed by the prior art reference Douglas. With respect to the arguments presented, Examiner notes that these are very similar, and often the same, as arguments that have been presented previously multiple times, as the Applicant continues to argue the same claim limitations. Additionally, Examiner has responded to these arguments each time, but Applicant does not appear to address any of the Examiner’s arguments in the subsequent responses, including this most recently filed response (February 04, 2026). As a result, Examiner relies on the same rationale provided in the previous office action(s) as a response to the Applicant’s current arguments. If the same claim limitations are to be argued by Applicant in further responses, Examiner suggests narrowing down the specific arguments about what specifically is believed to be different with the prior art, as well as address the arguments provided by the Examiner with respect to both the prior art’s teachings as well as how the Applicant’s claim limitations are being interpreted by the Examiner.
Applicant argues that Douglas does not teach biometric devices that are worn by the patients. Examiner respectfully agrees that Douglas does not teach the entirety of the Applicant’s claim limitation with respect to this one specific limitation. However, a new prior art reference has been relied upon to teach biometric devices that are worn by patients, as explained below with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections.
Double Patenting
04. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
05. Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of US Patent 10,061,821 in view of Stenquist (US PGPub 2010/0048159). Although the conflicted claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application recite broader versions of claims that are found in the prior patent. All of the claimed limitations in the instant application (except for the biometric device) are either broader versions or minor variations of wording of the claim’s limitations in the prior patent, as outlined in the table below with respect to claim 1:
Application 17/499,725
Patent 10,061,812
1. A method for tracking goal progression, the method comprising:
receiving input establishing clients, wherein the clients are individuals receiving treatment or assistance, and wherein the data associated with the clients is stored in a server available through one or more networks;
assigning each of the clients to one or more of the providers by the server in response to selections from an administrator, wherein the one or more providers include at least 1) individuals available to treat or assist each of the clients and 2) one or more biometric devices assigned to and worn by each of the clients;
establishing goals and a baseline for each of the clients and thresholds associated with each of the goals;
automatically compiling, via the server, data associated with each of the clients received from the one or more providers including at least the one or more biometric devices in the server;
determining whether the goals are being met in response to the baseline and the thresholds for the compiled data; and
automatically communicating alerts as managed by the server in response to the compiled data varying from one of the threshold to become significant for one of the one or more clients.
1. A method for tracking outcome specific data, the method comprising:
receiving input establishing accounts for providers serving clients in a client management program, wherein the clients are individuals receiving treatment or assistance, wherein the input includes rules for determining progress of the clients, wherein the accounts are stored in a database of a server, and wherein the input is received from an administrator utilizing one of a plurality of communications devices in communication with the server by one or more networks;
assigning each of the clients to one or more of the providers in response to selections from the administrator utilizing one of the plurality of communications devices, wherein the one or more providers are individuals
available to treat or assist the clients;
prompting the providers to provide
data associated with each of the clients that is required and not already received through the client management program, wherein the one or more providers periodically provide/update the data, and wherein the data relates to the well-being of the clients;
compiling the data associated with each of the clients received from the providers without input from the clients for the client management program to generate a score utilizing the rules, wherein the score is associated with progress toward mastery of one or more goals;
analyzing the compiled data and the score to automatically determine a status of the clients within the client management program, wherein the score is compared with previous compiled data to determine whether a plurality of measurements of the compiled data vary from a threshold to become significant;
automatically communicating an alert including the compiled data and the
status from the server executing the client management program to the plurality of communications devices associated with the providers assigned to one of the clients that is utilized by the administrator or one or more of the providers to intervene with the client in response to the plurality of measurements of the compiled data varying from the threshold to become significant for one of the clients.
Claim 1 of the instant application recites nearly the same claim embodiments as the prior patent, as seen in the table above. The only difference is that claim 1 in the instant application eliminates some claim limitations and makes some broader. The bolded sections from the prior patent (right side of the chart) are the sections that have either been eliminated or broadened. The bolded section for the instant application (left side of the chart) are the limitations that have been added to the claims, which is specifically a biometric device. However, this is a generic tool used in the technology and industry, and does not add anything significant to the claims. Since the claims in the instant application are merely reworded and abbreviated versions of the claims in the prior patent, they are rejected as such, as shown below.
Claim 1 of US Patent 10,061,812 substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to explicitly teach a biometric device. However, Stenquist (US PGPub 2010/0048159) teaches a biometric device that is worn by patients to obtain and transmit biometric data (paragraph [0054]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Stenquist into the invention of the instant application in order to allow for better monitoring of patients’ health so that the data could become available to clinicians quicker so that they could provide the necessary care for their patients in a timelier manner.
Claims 2 and 12 recite that a cloud network is used and that communications devices are utilized. Claim 2 of the prior patent recites both the usage of communications devices and a cloud network.
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 18 recites claim limitations that are present in independent claim 1 of the prior patent. Namely, the prior patent recites that the providers intervene in claims 4, 13, and 18. Therefore these claims are broader versions of claim 1 of the prior patent and they are rejected under the same rationale with respect to claim 1 above.
Claims 5, 14, and 19 recite that a plan of action is determined for achieving the goals. In the prior patent, claim 2 recites the progress of the client towards goals and claim 3 recites goals and their associated masteries and statuses. The determining of a goal status and client progress toward achieving a goal is just different terminology to explain the actions that have been done toward achieving a goal. Additionally, claim 5 of the prior patent recites best practices for the clients, which is also another way of saying the plan of action for the clients.
Claim 6 recites that a baseline and goals are established by the client and providers. These claim limitations are simplifications of parts of claims 2 and 3 of the prior patent, which recites data for the clients (baseline) and goals, which are determined by the providers for the clients.
Claims 7 and 15 recite that goals are established by the clients and the providers. Claim 5 of the prior patent recites that best practices are recommended to the providers, and claim 3 recites that goals are established for the clients based on the input data. The combination of claims 3 and 5 of the prior patent therefore teach the same embodiments as the Applicant’s claims, which is the recommending of goals based on received input.
Claims 8, 9, and 16 recite modifying goals, which can be in response to client progress towards the goals. Claim 10 of the prior patent recites that the status of goals can be determined, which relates to the client progress. Claim 1 of the prior patent recites that a determination of goal status can be used to allow a provider to intervene, which could be used to update or change the goals. Therefore the prior patented claims recite that the goals can be changed based on client progress towards the goals.
Claim 10 recites modifying goals, which can be in response to client not progressing toward the goals. Claim 10 of the prior patent recites that the status of goals can be determined, which relates to the client progress. Claim 1 of the prior patent recites that a determination of goal status can be used to allow a provider to intervene, which could be used to update or change the goals. Therefore the prior patented claims recite that the goals can be changed based on client progress towards the goals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
06. 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 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.
07. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
08. Claims 1 and 3 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al. (WO 99/03045), hereinafter “Douglas”, in view of Stenquist (US PGPub 2010/0048159).
Consider claim 1, Douglas discloses a method for tracking goal progression (page 2 line 36 – page 3 line 2), the method comprising:
receiving input establishing clients, wherein the clients are individuals receiving treatment or assistance (page 6 line 28 – page 7 line 16, patients are entered into the system, which includes information about the patient’s conditions and what treatment they are to received) and wherein the data associated with the clients is stored in a server available through one or more networks (page 8 lines 28 – 31, the patent data is stored on a server that is accessible through a network);
assigning each of the clients to one or more of the providers by the server in response to selections from an administrator, wherein the one or more providers include at least 1) individuals available to treat or assist each of the clients (page 11 line 6 – page 12 line 2, the patients are assigned to physicians, wherein the physicians are able to provide help and treatment to the patients) and 2) one or more biometric devices assigned to each of the clients (page 10 lines 10 – 24, medical devices are used that are able to capture the patients vitals);
establishing goals and a baseline for each of the clients and thresholds associated with each of the goals (page 7 line 29 – page 8 line 9, goals and milestones are generated for the patients, which can be modified and updated as needed);
automatically compiling, via the server, data associated with each of the clients received from the one or more providers including at least the one or more biometric devices in the server (page 20 lines 3 – 34, a patient’s characteristics, such as vitals and progress towards goals, are determined, such that updated information about the patients is managed, including a patient’s vitals);
determining whether the goals are being met in response to the baseline and the thresholds for the compiled data (page 11 line 8 – page 12 line 2, patient progress is monitored with respect to the goals, which includes determining if a certain level of progress is being made by the patient);
automatically communicating alerts as managed by the server in response to the compiled data varying from a one of the thresholds to become significant for one or more of the clients (page 11 lines 11 – 15, an alarm can be triggered in response to patient data being significant, such as posing a health risk).
Although Douglas teaches using biometric devices to obtain patient data (page 10 lines 10 – 24), Douglas does not specifically teach that the biometric devices are worn by the client.
In the same field of endeavor, Stenquist discloses a method comprising:
one or more biometric devices assigned to and worn by each of the clients (paragraphs [0054], [0055], patients are provided with biometric devices that they wear, which provide biometric patient data that can be sent to a server for monitoring).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the worn biometric devices taught by Stenquist into the patient monitoring system taught by Douglas for the purpose of allowing patient data to be obtained quicker and more efficiently, so that the data can be obtained by and reviewed either automatically or by doctors, so they a patient’s health can be more accurately determined, which would lead to the ability to intervene quicker in the event the patient needs medical care.
Consider claim 3, and as applied to claim 1 above, Douglas discloses a method comprising:
intervening with the one or more of the clients in response to the alerts (page 11 lines 11 – 19, an alarm can be triggered in response to a threatening situation with the patient).
Consider claim 4, and as applied to claim 3 above, Douglas discloses a method comprising:
the intervening is performed by the one or more providers (page 11 lines 11 – 19, the physician for the patient provides the intervening).
Consider claim 5, and as applied to claim 1 above, Douglas discloses a method comprising:
each of the goals is associated with a plan of action for achieving each of the goals (page 7 line 5 – page 8 line 13, a program is created for the patient to assist in the achieving of goals).
Consider claim 6, and as applied to claim 1 above, Douglas discloses a method comprising:
establishing a baseline for the goals of the clients (page 7 lines 20 – 32, different goals and baseline values are established for the patients).
Consider claim 7, and as applied to claim 1 above, Douglas discloses a method comprising:
the goals are established by the clients and the one or more providers (page 7 lines 20 – 32, the goals are determined based on the client and physician input).
Consider claim 8, and as applied to claim 1 above, Douglas discloses a method comprising:
determining whether modifications to the goals are required in response to the
compiled data (page 8 lines 8 – 13, page 11 lines 18 – 34, changes can be made to the goals for the patients).
Consider claim 9, and as applied to claim 8 above, Douglas discloses a method comprising:
modifying the goals in response to the compiled data (page 8 lines 8 – 13, page 11 lines 18 – 34, changes can be made to the goals for the patients).
Consider claim 10, and as applied to claim 8 above, Douglas discloses a method comprising:
modifications are determined to be required if the one of the clients is unable to achieve the goals associated with the client (page 8 lines 8 – 13, page 11 lines 18 – 34, changes can be made to the goals for the patients in response to determining that progress is not appropriate for that goals).
Claims 11 – 20, recite nearly identical claim limitations to those found in claims 1 – 10. Claims 11 – 16 recite a system and claims 17 – 20 recite a server, whereas claims 1 – 10 recite a method. However, the same claim limitations are otherwise found, and claims 11 – 20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 – 10.
09. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al. (WO 99/03045), hereinafter “Douglas”, in view of Stenquist (US PGPub 2010/0048159), in further view of Chitiveli (US PGPub 2013/0179450), hereinafter “Chitiveli”.
Consider claim 2, and as applied to claim 1 above, Douglas discloses a method comprising:
the server is accessed through a [cloud] network, and wherein a client management program is executed by communications devices utilized by the one or more providers to receive the data and track progress of the goals (page 24 lines 3 – 34, a server is accessed through a network, whereby the programs utilized by different communications devices and hardware/software).
However, Douglas and Stenquist does not specifically disclose a cloud network.
In the same field of endeavor, Chitiveli discloses a method comprising:
the server is accessed through a cloud network (paragraphs [0031], [0032], a cloud network it utilized, which is used to access a server).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cloud network taught by Chitiveli into the patient monitoring system taught by Douglas and Stenquist to allow for a more complex and modern computing infrastructure to be used for the monitoring of patients and their conditions. This would allow for better managing of the patient information which would lead to quicker speeds in being able to respond to patient health issues.
Conclusion
10. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Christopher Raab whose telephone number is (571) 270-1090. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached on (571) 272-3906. 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) or 703-305-3028.
/CHRISTOPHER J RAAB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
March 20, 2026