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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Non-Final office action is in response to the claims filed on February 26, 2026.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 18-19, and 22 have been amended.
Claims 5 & 20 were previously canceled.
Claims 1-4, 6-19 and 21-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Subject Matter Free of Art
Claims 1-4, 6-19, 21-22 include subject matter that is free of prior art. The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within independent claims 1, 18, and 19. In particular, the cited prior art fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of:
at an electronic device with one or more processors and memory: receiving, by a digital assistant capable of accessing a plurality of types of health information, a natural language input associated with a type of health information of the plurality of types of health information;
in accordance with a determination that the natural language input corresponds to a health domain: determining whether the digital assistant is authorized to access the type of health information, wherein determining whether the digital assistant is authorized to access the type of health information includes determining whether a user configured the digital assistant to have access to the type of health information;
in accordance with a determination that the digital assistant is authorized to access the type of health information, the natural language input corresponds to a health logging request, and the type of health information is a supported type of health information: initiating a task based on the natural language input, wherein initiating the task includes logging, by the digital assistant, a value for the type of health information and providing, by the electronic device, a first output that the digital assistant has logged the value;
in accordance with a determination that the digital assistant is authorized to access the type of health information, the natural language input corresponds to a health logging request, and the type of health information is not the supported type of health information: providing, by the digital assistant, a second output including an application affordance that, when selected, displays a user interface corresponding to the type of health information; and
in accordance with a determination that the digital assistant is not authorized to access the type of health information: providing, by the digital assistant, a third output indicating that the digital assistant is not authorized to access the type of health information;
in accordance with a determination that the natural language input does not correspond to a health domain: determining a response to the natural language input.
The closest cited prior art Brown et al. (US 20140337048 A1) discloses an electronic device with one or more processors, receiving, by a digital assistant capable of accessing a plurality of types of health information, a natural language input associated with a type of health information of the plurality of types of health information; a determination that the natural language input corresponds to a health domain; in accordance with a determination that the digital assistant is authorized to access the type of health information, the natural language input corresponds to a health logging request, initiating a task based on the natural language input, wherein initiating the task includes logging, by the digital assistant, a value for the type of health information.
The closest cited prior art Allen et al. (US 20180211005 A1) discloses determining whether [the digital assistant] is authorized to access the type of health information includes determining whether a user configured [the digital assistant] to access the type of health information and in accordance with a determination that [the digital assistant] is not authorized to access the type of health information: provide a second output indicating that the digital assistant is not authorized to access the type of health information.
The closest cited prior art Newendorp et al. (US 20180330722A1) discloses determining that the natural language input corresponds to a health domain; providing, by the electronic device, a first output that the digital assistant has logged the value; and in accordance with a determination that the natural language input does not correspond to a health domain: determining a response to the natural language input.
However, the Examiner does not find that the cited references separately or in combination fairly teach the limitations of the amended claims. In particular, the Examiner does not find that the cited references teach in accordance with a determination that the digital assistant is authorized to access the type of health information, the natural language input corresponds to a health logging request, and the type of health information is not the supported type of health information: providing, by the digital assistant, a second output including an application affordance that, when selected, displays a user interface corresponding to the type of health information.
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 1-4, 6-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Eligibility Step 1 (Does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?)
Claims 1-4, 6-17 and 21-22 are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, claim 18 is drawn to a system, and claim 19 is drawn to a method, all of which are within the four statutory categories.
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?)
Claims 1-4, 6-19 and 21-22 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below:
The Examiner has identified independent claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis.
Claim 1 recites a series of steps for providing an output regarding an input associated with health information based on access authorization to the health information, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea that falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., following a set of rules or instructions). Additionally, determining authorization is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations which set forth the abstract idea:
receive, […], a natural language input associated with a type of health information of the plurality of types of health information;
in accordance with a determination that the natural language input corresponds to a health domain: determine whether there is authorization to access the type of health information; wherein determining whether there is authorization to access the type of health information includes determining whether a user configured access to the type of health information;
in accordance with a determination that authorization to access the type of health information is present, the natural language input corresponds to a health logging request, and the type of health information is a supported type of health information: initiate a task based on the natural language input, wherein initiating the task includes logging, […], a value for the type of health information and providing, […], a first output that the value has been logged; and
in accordance with a determination that authorization to access the type of health information is present, the natural language input corresponds to a health logging request, and the type of health information is not the supported type of health information: provide, […], a second output…
in accordance with a determination that authorization to access the type of health information is not present: provide, […], a third output indicating that authorization to access the type of health information is not present;
in accordance with a determination that the natural language input does not correspond to a health domain: determine a response to the natural language input.
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1, 18, and 19 recite the following additional elements:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which are executed by one or more processors of an electronic device (claim 1)
an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; a memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions (claim 18)
an electronic device with one or more processors and memory (claim 19)
a digital assistant capable of accessing a plurality of types of health information
an application affordance that, when selected, displays a user interface corresponding to the type of health information.
The non-transitory computer medium storing program instructions, the electronic device with one or more processors and memory, the digital assistant, the application affordance and user interface are recited a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)(I) which states that merely having the words “apply it” and/or “generally linking” the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more). Therefore, claims 1, 18, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The use of additional elements noted above as tools to implement/automate the abstract idea does not render claims 1, 18, and 19 to be patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?):
Claims 1, 18, and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Paragraph [0036] of the Specification discloses “the term ‘digital assistant’ refers to any information processing system that interprets natural language input in spoken and/or textual form to infer user intent, and performs actions based on the inferred user intent’ suggesting that the digital assistant is a generic information processing system. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements noted above to perform the generic computer functions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component or generally link the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05 (I)(A)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the “digital assistant” is described in the background section of Applicant’s Specification indicating that the digital assistant is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see also reference to Siri at Para. 0219; Siri was release in 2010 and is ubiquitous). Claims 1, 18, and 19 are, therefore, not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-4, 6-17 and 21-22 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. Claim 2 merely describes granting access authorization. Claims 3-4 merely describe the input and output related to health information. Claim 6 describes a third output in response to the logged values. Claim 7 describes a second input in response to the third output. Claim 8 describes a third input of rejecting the logged value. Claims 9-11 merely describe the input and output. Claim 12 describes access authorization. Claim 13 describes different outputs to an input by a user based on access authorization to the health information of someone else. Claim 14 describes the task initiation and an audio output. Claim 15 merely describes the input and output. Claim 16 describes the output in response to lacking access authorization. Claims 17 and 21 describe the access authorization determination. Claim 22 describes a setting affordance prompt to grant authorization access.
Claims 2, 6-17 do not recite any additional elements.
Claims 3-4 recite the following additional element:
a health application installed on the electronic device
Claim 21 recites the following additional elements:
A first application
A second application with a natural language processing module
Claim 22 recites the following additional element:
A settings affordance that, when selected, displays a settings user interface
The noted above additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)(I) which states that merely having the words “apply it” and/or “generally linking” the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more). Therefore, claims 3-4, and 21-22 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Claims 2-4, 6-17 and 21-22 are, therefore, not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections -35 U.S.C. § 112
Regarding the 112b indefiniteness rejection of claim 22, Applicant has amended the claim rendering the rejection as moot. As such, the Examiner has withdrawn the 112b rejection.
Claim Rejections -35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the 101 rejection, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Issue #1:
Applicant argues: The Final Office Action dated December 18, 2025 (hereinafter "Office Action") alleges that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping and "managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people" sub- grouping. (See Office Action at p. 3 and p. 22). Applicant respectfully disagrees… the currently amended claims recite (and are directed to) specific steps by which a computer performs technical operations on determined supported types of data to improve the performance of user requested actions. For example, the claims as currently amended recite the steps of: " in accordance with a determination that the natural language input corresponds to a health domain: determining whether the digital assistant is authorized to access the type of health information, wherein determining whether the digital assistant is authorized to access the type of health information includes determining whether a user configured the digital assistant to have access to the type of health information; in accordance with a determination that the digital assistant is authorized to access the type of health information, the natural language input corresponds to a health logging request, and the type of health information is a supported type of health information: initiating a task based on the natural language input, wherein initiating a task includes logging by the digital assistant, the value for the type of health information and providing, by the electronic device, a first output that the digital assistant has logged the value; and in accordance with a determination that the digital assistant is not authorized to access the type of health information: providing a second output indicating that the digital assistant is not authorized to access the type of health information; in accordance with a determination that the digital assistant is not authorized to access the type of health information: providing, by the digital assistant, a third output indicating that the digital assistant is not authorized to access the type of health information; and “in accordance with a determination that the natural language input does not correspond to a health domain: determining a response to the natural language input.” The above steps, in combination, demonstrate that the claims recite specific logic implemented by a computer to operate on data determined to satisfy several criterion (e.g. "digital assistant is authorized to access the type of health information, the natural language input corresponds to a health logging request, and the type of health information is a supported type of health information”) to improve device security and user privacy. Such computer logic clearly does not recite any abstract idea under "certain methods of organizing human activity." Specifically, the above-recited steps are operations performed by a computer. They are not any of (1) activity of a single person, (2) activity involving multiple people, or (3) activity between a person and a computer...
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Multiple CAFC decisions that the Office has characterized as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity did not actively recite a person or persons performing the steps of the claims (see, e.g. EPG, TLI communications, Ultramercial). Because whether a human is required to perform the step of the claim is not a requirement for claims to encompass certain method of organizing human activity, this argument is not persuasive. Furthermore, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to output information based on permission given to access health information. As indicated in the 101 rejection above, the computer is used as a tool to apply the abstract idea.
Issue #2:
Applicant argues: The Claims are integrated into a practical application. The amended claims improve the accuracy and efficiency with which a computer can perform user-requested actions. Further, not only do the claims provide the improvement, the Specification as filed describes the invention such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the improvement and the claims recite the specific computer implemented steps required to achieve the improvement. According to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), to determine whether a claim improves the functioning of a computer: first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. ... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in the technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. Applicant's Specification makes the improvement apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Consider the example natural language input "Log that I ate 30 grams of fiber today." In this example, the device determines that the user input corresponds to a health logging request of an unsupported type of information and provides the output “You can do that in the health app.” In yet another example, device 800 receives the user input "Log that I walked 5 miles today?" and logs the supported type of information. Thus, the claimed invention improves computer technology by identifying whether the health logging request corresponds to supported or unsupported types of data, thereby improving the efficiency with which a computer performs a task and reducing the number of user inputs required to operate the computer as desired... The claimed technique further contributes to improved device efficiency, including reduced power usage and improved battery life, by "reducing the number of user inputs required to perform health information related tasks." (Specification at [0008]). Accordingly, logging the requested health information if determined that the digital assistant has access to the requested health information, that the request corresponds to a health logging request, and that the information is a supported type further improves device efficiency and battery life by enhancing the operability of the device and making the user-device interface more efficient. Moreover, performing additional processes (e.g. determining whether “the digital assistant is authorized to access the type of health information, the natural language input corresponds to a health logging request, and the type of health information is a supported type of health information”) “in accordance with a determination that the natural language input corresponds to a health domain” further improves device efficiency and battery life while prioritizing user privacy. In addition, the amended claims do not merely recite the results of more accurate and efficient computer-performed actions. Rather, the amended claims recite specific steps by which a computer performs technical operations on previously determined data to achieve the improved result. Notably, MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) emphasizes that a claim should "recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished" and that "claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may implement the judicial exception into a practical application to provide significantly more." (See also Finjan. Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. Jan 10, 2018) in which the Federal Circuit found that claims were § 101 eligible because they recite "specific steps that accomplish a result that realizes an improvement in computer functionality.")In view of the above, both Applicant's claims and the Application as-filed demonstrate that the claimed invention "improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).) Accordingly, the claims are directed to an improvement in computer related technology, and therefore, integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claims 1, 18, and 19 (and all claims depending therefrom) are § 101 eligible.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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. Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any technological problem that is solved by the claimed invention as explained below. Further, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer. See also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). The technological environment of Applicant’s claim is a general-purpose computer (see Spec. Para. 0040). Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any physical improvement to the functioning of the computer that results from the implementation of Applicant’s claim. There is no indication that the computer is made to run faster, more efficiently, or utilize less power. The problem of user-privacy was not a problem caused by the computer and is a problem that existed well-prior to the computer. The argument that the claimed invention improves computer functionality by allowing the digital assistant to accurately identify and respond to requests, thereby “contributing to improved device efficiency, including reduced power usage and improved battery life” is equally unpersuasive because it is mere supposition on Applicant’s part and no such efficiency is reflected in the claim. The electronic device may require more power/battery life to determine if the digital assistant is authorized to access the type of health information. There is no nexus between this argument and what is claimed. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application.
Claim Rejections -35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 18, and 19 regarding the supported and unsupported types of health information versus the domain have been considered and are persuasive. As such, the prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALAK M NASSER whose telephone number is (703)756-4610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached on 571-270-1813. 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.
/MALAK M NASSER/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights