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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 24 November 2025. Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18, and 20 were amended. Claims 7, 9, 17, and 19 were canceled. Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18, and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “one or more mindfulness questionnaire scores” in line 11 and “one or more mindfulness parameters scores” in line 12. It is unclear whether these are the same as or different from the recited “one or more mindfulness questionnaire scores” and “one or more mindfulness parameters scores” in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, these will be considered to state “the one or more mindfulness questionnaire scores” and “the one or more mindfulness parameters scores,” respectively. 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 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18, and 20 fall within one or more statutory categories. Claims 1-6, 8, and 10 fall within the category of a machine. Claims 11-16, 18, and 20 fall within the category of a process.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18, and 20 recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites:
… receive a request … to evaluate wellness of one or more users, wherein the request comprises: name, address, weight, height, glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, gender, age and experience level of the one or more users;
… determine a set of wellness parameters corresponding to each of one or more wellness pillars based on the received request and a set of predefined rules …, wherein the one or more wellness pillars comprise: relaxation pillar, fitness pillar, mindfulness pillar, nutrition pillar and sleep pillar;
receive one or more wellness preferences …, wherein the one or more wellness preferences comprise: weight loss, weight gain, stress management, anxiety management, and sleep management;
dynamically allocate one or more parameter weightages to the set of wellness parameters of each of the one or more wellness pillars based on the received one or more wellness preferences, the received request and predefined wellness information …, wherein a set of parameter scores for the set of wellness parameters of each of the one or more wellness pillars are generated based on the dynamically allocated one or more parameter weightages and wherein the set of parameter scores comprise: one or more fitness parameters scores, one or more relaxation questionnaire scores, one or more relaxation parameters scores, one or more mindfulness questionnaire scores, one or more mindfulness parameters scores, one or more nutrition parameters scores and one or more sleep parameters scores; and
dynamically allocate a pillar weightage to each of the one or more wellness pillars based on the received one or more wellness preferences, the received request and the predefined wellness information …;
… generate a pillar score for each of the one or more wellness pillars based on the received request, the set of predefined rules, the determined set of wellness parameters corresponding to each of the one or more wellness pillars and the dynamically allocated pillar weightage …, wherein the pillar score for each of the one or more wellness pillars comprises:
a fitness score, generated … based on the set of wellness parameters corresponding to the fitness pillar;
a relaxation score, generated … using a Perceived Stress Scale (PSS);
a mindfulness score, generated … based on the one or more mindfulness questionnaire scores, wherein the one or more mindfulness questionnaire scores are determined using a mindfulness questionnaire including a Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ);
a nutrition score, generated … based on the set of wellness parameters corresponding to the nutrition pillar, wherein the set of wellness parameters corresponding to the nutrition pillar are obtained via a health device that is a finger prick device or a wearable device; and
a sleep score, generated … based on the set of wellness parameters corresponding to the sleep pillar;
… generate a wellness score of the one or more users based on the generated pillar score of each of the one or more wellness pillars, the received request, the set of predefined rules and the dynamically allocated pillar weightage …, wherein the wellness score is generated by correlating the pillar score of each of the one or more wellness pillars, the received request, the set of predefined rules and the dynamically allocated pillar weightage …, wherein the pillar score of each of the one or more wellness pillars comprises: the fitness score, the relaxation score, the nutrition score, the mindfulness score and the sleep score;
… determine a level of wellness of the one or more users based on the generated wellness score, the predefined wellness information and the received request …; and
determine if the determined level of wellness of the one or more users is below a predefined threshold wellness level;
determine one or more root causes for the determined level of wellness based on the determined level of wellness, the set of parameter scores and the predefined wellness information;
predict one or more possible health conditions of the one or more users based on the determined one or more root causes, the determined level of wellness, the set of parameter scores and the predefined wellness information …;
predict a time of occurrence of the predicted one or more possible health conditions based on the determined one or more root causes, the determined level of wellness, the set of parameter scores and the predefined wellness information …, and;
… output the determined set of wellness parameters corresponding to each of the one or more wellness pillars, the generated pillar score for each of the one or more wellness pillars, the generated wellness score, the determined level of wellness, the determined one or more root causes, the predicted one or more possible health conditions, and the predicted time of occurrence of the predicted one or more possible health conditions …,
Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “measuring user wellness” which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity. “Measuring user wellness” is considered to be a method of organizing human activity because it is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims include the interaction between a healthcare provider and a patient.
Alternatively, the claim as a whole is considered to be directed to a mental process, because it is also an example of a concept capable of being performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) with the aid of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two: 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. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s):
the system is an Artificial Intelligence Based (AI-based) computing system;
one or more virtualized hardware processors; and
a memory coupled to the one or more virtualized hardware processors;
a plurality of modules in the form of programmable instructions executable by the one or more virtualized hardware processors [to perform the above steps];
[the steps recited above are further performed] using a trained wellness evaluation based Artificial Intelligence (AI) model.
one or more user devices;
user interface screens of the one or more user devices;
using Transport Layer Security (TLS).
The additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application. These additional elements merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, considered individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s), individually and in combination, merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 2 recites the system of claim 1, wherein:
in generating the pillar score for each of the one or more wellness pillars based on the received request, the set of predefined rules, the determined set of wellness parameters corresponding to each of the one or more wellness pillars and the dynamically allocated pillar weightage by using the trained wellness evaluation based Al model, the pillar score generation module is configured to:
determine the one or more fitness parameters scores for the determined set of wellness parameters corresponding to the fitness pillar based on the received request, the set of predefined rules and the dynamically allocated pillar weightage by using the trained wellness evaluation based Al model, wherein the set of wellness parameters corresponding to the fitness pillar comprise: muscular strength, cardiovascular endurance, muscular endurance, flexibility, sit and reach, body composition, calories, cadence, distance, pace, heart rate and duration; and
generate the fitness score based on the determined one or more fitness parameters scores for the determined set of wellness parameters corresponding to the fitness pillar, the received request, the set of predefined rules and the dynamically allocated pillar weightage by using the trained wellness evaluation based Al model.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 2 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites the system of claim 1, wherein:
in generating the pillar score for each of the one or more wellness pillars based on the received request, the set of predefined rules, the determined set of wellness parameters corresponding to each of the one or more wellness pillars and the dynamically allocated pillar weightage by using the trained wellness evaluation based Al model, the pillar score generation module is configured to:
output a relaxation questionnaire on the user interface screens of the one or more user devices;
obtain one or more responses of the one or more users on the outputted relaxation questionnaire from the one or more user devices;
determine the one or more relaxation questionnaire scores corresponding to the relaxation questionnaire and the one or more relaxation parameters scores for the determined set of wellness parameters corresponding to the relaxation pillar based on the obtained one or more responses, the received request, the predefined wellness information, the set of predefined rules and the dynamically allocated pillar weightage by using the trained wellness evaluation based Al model; and
generate the relaxation score based on the determined one or more relaxation questionnaire scores, the received request, the one or more relaxation parameters scores, the set of predefined rules and the dynamically allocated pillar weightage by using the trained wellness evaluation based Al model.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 3 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 4 recites the system of claim 1, wherein:
in generating the pillar score for each of the one or more wellness pillars based on the received request, the set of predefined rules, the determined set of wellness parameters corresponding to each of the one or more wellness pillars and the dynamically allocated pillar weightage by using the trained wellness evaluation based Al model, the pillar score generation module is configured to:
output a mindfulness questionnaire on the user interface screens of the one or more user devices;
obtain one or more responses of the one or more users on the outputted mindfulness questionnaire from the one or more user devices;
determine one or more mindfulness questionnaire scores corresponding to the mindfulness questionnaire and one or more mindfulness parameters scores for the determined set of wellness parameters corresponding to the mindfulness pillar based on the obtained one or more responses, the received request, the predefined wellness information, the set of predefined rules and the dynamically allocated pillar weightage by using the trained wellness evaluation based Al model, wherein the set of wellness parameters corresponding to the mindfulness pillar comprise: calm time, focus time and training time; and
generate the mindfulness score based on the determined one or more mindfulness questionnaire scores, the received request, the one or more mindfulness parameters scores, the set of predefined rules and the dynamically allocated pillar weightage by using the trained wellness evaluation based Al model.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 4 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 recites the system of claim 1, wherein:
in generating the pillar score for each of the one or more wellness pillars based on the received request, the set of predefined rules, the determined set of wellness parameters corresponding to each of the one or more wellness pillars and the dynamically allocated pillar weightage by using the trained wellness evaluation based Al model, the pillar score generation module is configured to:
determine the one or more nutrition parameters scores for the determined set of wellness parameters corresponding to the nutrition pillar based on the received request, the set of predefined rules and the dynamically allocated pillar weightage by using the trained wellness evaluation based Al model, wherein the set of wellness parameters corresponding to the nutrition pillar comprise: Body Mass Index (BMI), glucose, total cholesterol, risk ratio, Low-Density Lipoprotein (LDL), High-Density Lipoprotein (HDL), triglycerides, gut microbiome analysis, stress analysis, immune system health and biological age; and
generate the nutrition score based on the determined one or more nutrition parameter scores for the determined set of wellness parameters, the received request, the set of predefined rules and the dynamically allocated pillar weightage by using the trained wellness evaluation based Al model.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 5 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites the system of claim 1, wherein:
in generating the pillar score for each of the one or more wellness pillars based on the received request, the set of predefined rules, the determined set of wellness parameters corresponding to each of the one or more wellness pillars and the dynamically allocated pillar weightage by using the trained wellness evaluation based Al model, the pillar score generation module is configured to:
determine the one or more sleep parameters scores for the determined set of wellness parameters corresponding to the sleep pillar based on the received request, the set of predefined rules and the dynamically allocated pillar weightage by using the trained wellness evaluation based Al model, wherein the set of wellness parameters corresponding to the sleep pillar comprise: total time in bed, sleep latency, readiness, activity, sleep waking, actual sleep time, wakefulness, sleep efficiency, efficiency resting heart rate, Heart Rate Variability (HRV), respiration rate and body temperature;
generate the sleep score based on the determined one or more sleep parameter scores for the determined set of wellness parameters, the received request, the set of predefined rules and the dynamically allocated pillar weightage by using the trained wellness evaluation based Al model.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 6 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 8 recites the system of claim 5, wherein:
the set of wellness parameters corresponding to the nutrition pillar are obtained further via a collection of bodily matters.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 8 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 10 recites the system of claim 1, wherein:
the level of wellness of the one or more users comprises: elite, advanced, intermediate, beginner and new.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Accordingly, claim 10 is ineligible.
Claims 11-16, 18, and 20 are parallel in nature to claims 1-6, 8, and 10. Accordingly claims 11-16, 18, and 20 are rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
Subject Matter Free of Prior
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18, and 20 are considered to be free of prior art. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of subject matter free of prior art:
Applicant’s claims are directed to a particular system and method for evaluating wellness of one or more users, using artificial intelligence and parameters in categories connected to fitness, relaxation, mindfulness, nutrition, and sleep. The closest prior art is understood to be the prior art of record. The Ohnemus reference discloses a system an method that uses data connected to relaxation, fitness, nutrition, and sleep in order to calculate wellness scores for a user. The Mouchantaf reference teaches the use of mindfulness data to calculated wellness scores for a user. However, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a combination which results in the specific combination of elements described in the claim language of the independent claims, including the specific use of a Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and a Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) as part of the wellness score calculation (in combination with the other types of data disclosed by Ohnemus and Mouchantaf) and Transport Layer Security (TLS) to output the results. Accordingly, the claims are considered to be free of prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 November 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under step 2A Prong One (see Applicant Remarks pages 18-22). Under this section of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant appears to argue that the claims are recite a technical solution to a technical problem (i.e. a practical application), not a method of organizing human activity or a mental process. However, the question of whether a claim is integrated into a practical application or not, is considered under Step 2A Prong Two (not Prong One) when considering any additional elements present in the claims. While the claims do recite the use of technology, these are considered to be general purpose computing components and functions used to perform the actual abstract idea of measuring wellness through the calculation of health related scores. This broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language falls into the category of “methods of organizing human activity” because it can include the interaction between a provider and a patient. Similarly, the claims amount to collecting information, calculating scores, and then predicting health outcomes. This broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language falls into the category of a “mental process” because it is an example of a concept capable of being performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, under Step 2A Prong One, the claim is considered to recite an abstract idea, and the analysis must continue into Prong Two and Step 2B.
Next, Applicant argues that, under Step 2A Prong Two, the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (see Applicant Remarks pages 22-23). This is not persuasive. As already discussed, the recited additional elements, including the broadly cited used of artificial intelligence and TLS, amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Finally, Applicant argues that, under Step 2B, the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see Applicant Remarks pages 23-25). As part of this section, Applicant argues that the additional elements are complex and non-routine, but this is not persuasive. As currently recited, the claims do not recite complex technology, but instead recites memory, virtualized processors, user devices with user interfaces, an artificial intelligence model, and generic TLS functionality. These are all broadly recited, generic technological components. Accordingly, they amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). According to the MPEP, this is not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hamilton et al. (U.S. 2022/0238233) teaches and discloses a system for using mindfulness to evaluate a user’s health and wellness.
Horseman et al. (U.S. 2017/0169379) discloses a system and method for collecting health data and proving health related scores based on that data, including the use of functional performance and flexibility test data.
Decombel et al. (U.S. 2019/0267128) discloses a system and method for tracking data for determining patient wellness, including gut microbiome data.
Youngblood et al. (U.S. 2018/0110960) discloses a system for addressing user health and wellness, including the calculation of sleep latency and sleep efficiency.
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 BENJAMIN L HANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/B.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights