DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is the final action on the merits in response to the amendments and arguments filed on February 27, 2026. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 1-10, 12-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20 are directed to a process. As such, each claim is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas: “A method comprising: providinga medical questionnaire to a patient , the medical questionnaire being associated with a sender and a medical condition and a scoring procedure for scoring responses to the medical questionnaire; receivinga set of responses to the medical questionnaire from the patient ; determininga wellness score for the patient by applying the scoring procedure to the set of responses; receivinga previously determined wellness score for the patient; comparingthe determined wellness score and the received previously determined wellness score for the patient; determiningan improvement score using a result of the comparing; receiving a characteristic of the patient; determining whether the patient characteristic impacts the determination of at least one of the wellness score and the improvement score and, if so, adjusting at least one of the wellness score and the improvement score using the patient characteristic; determiningwhether the improvement score is above a threshold for improvement scores, wherein the determination of whether the improvement score is above the threshold for improvement scores includes determining whether the adjusted improvement score is above a threshold for adjusted improvement scores; providingthe patient by which the patient may provide an instruction to post the improvement score to an account responsively to a determination that the improvement score is above a threshold value for improvement scores; receivingthe instruction to post the improvement score ; formattingthe improvement score for posting to the account , thereby generating a formatted social media post that includes the improvement score, the formatting including: enable sharing and searching track and report specific interaction metrics comprising views, clicks, and shares of the social media post back to the sender of the medical questionnaire in real-time, thereby enabling monitoring of interactions with the social media post by the sender of the medical questionnaire; generating a static image file that includes the improvement score and is de-identified to remove personally identifying information prior to posting; and communicatingthe formatted social media post
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities (i.e., A method comprising: providing a medical questionnaire to a patient, the medical questionnaire being associated with a sender and a medical condition and a scoring procedure for scoring responses to the medical questionnaire; receiving a set of responses to the medical questionnaire from the patient; determining a wellness score for the patient by applying the scoring procedure to the set of responses; receiving a previously determined wellness score for the patient; comparing the determined wellness score and the received previously determined wellness score for the patient; determining an improvement score using a result of the comparing; receiving a characteristic of the patient; determining whether the patient characteristic impacts the determination of at least one of the wellness score and the improvement score and, if so, adjusting at least one of the wellness score and the improvement score using the patient characteristic; determining whether the improvement score is above a threshold for improvement scores, wherein the determination of whether the improvement score is above the threshold for improvement scores includes determining whether the adjusted improvement score is above a threshold for adjusted improvement scores; providing the patient by which the patient may provide an instruction to post the improvement score to an account responsively to a determination that the improvement score is above a threshold value for improvement scores; receiving the instruction to post the improvement score; formatting the improvement score for posting to the account, thereby generating a formatted social media post that includes the improvement score, the formatting including: enable sharing and searching, track and report specific interaction metrics comprising views, clicks, and shares of the social media post back to the sender of the medical questionnaire in real-time, thereby enabling monitoring of interactions with the social media post by the sender of the medical questionnaire; generating a static image file that includes the improvement score and is de-identified to remove personally identifying information prior to posting; and communicating the formatted social media post), but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., a processor, a first graphic user interface displayed on a display device, a second graphic user interface, a social media platform, executable computer software code, a system, encoding with metadata, encoding with secure access instructions comprising at least one of login credentials, security certificates, and permissions, encoding with a hyperlink to a URL). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) 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 (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a processor, a first graphic user interface displayed on a display device, a second graphic user interface, a social media platform, executable computer software code, a system, encoding with metadata, encoding with secure access instructions comprising at least one of login credentials, security certificates, and permissions, encoding with a hyperlink to a URL. The computer hardware is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic computers providing, receiving, and determining information, generic interfaces displaying information and receiving input, generic platform for uploading information, generic computer functions of encoding data with metadata, login credentials, security certificates, and a hyperlink) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since they do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of using computer hardware (a processor, a first graphic user interface displayed on a display device, a second graphic user interface, a social media platform, executable computer software code, a system, encoding with metadata, encoding with secure access instructions comprising at least one of login credentials, security certificates, and permissions, encoding with a hyperlink to a URL) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 do not include any additional elements beyond those identified above. They further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor are they sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Saliman, in combination with the other references previously relied upon, teaches providing a medical questionnaire to a patient, receiving responses to the questionnaire, determining a wellness score, comparing the wellness score to a previous wellness score, determining an improvement score, determining whether the score is above a threshold, receiving an instruction to post the score to a social media platform if the score is above a threshold, formatting the score for posting, and communicating the post to the platform. However, the combination of references does not teach receiving a characteristic of the patient and determining whether it impacts the scores and adjusting the scores accordingly, encoding the post with metadata to monitor interactions, with secure access instructions, and with a hyperlink to a URL associated with the sender of the questionnaire, and generating a static image file that includes the score and is de-identified to remove personally identifying information prior to posting.
The closest NPL, “Enabling Trusted and Privacy-Preserving Healthcare Services in Social Media Health Networks,” teaches a privacy-preserving framework for social media health networks, where patients can share healthcare information with other patients who have similar health symptoms. However, it does not teach receiving an instruction to post a patient score to a social media platform if the score is above a threshold, encoding the post with metadata to monitor interactions, with secure access instructions, and with a hyperlink to a URL, and generating a static image file that includes the score.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 35 USC 112(a) Rejections of Claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20: Claim 1 has been amended.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and they resolve the identified issue. As such, the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 35 USC 101 Rejection of Claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20:
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 1 as amended recites specific technical features that integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, the formatting step now requires “encoding the social media post with metadata that is optimized to enable sharing and searching on the social media platform and includes executable computer software code configured to track and report specific interaction metrics comprising views, clicks, and shares of the social media post back to a system of the sender of the medical questionnaire in real-time, thereby enabling monitoring of interactions with the social media post by the sender of the medical questionnaire.”
This amended limitation specifies a particular technical implementation for tracking and reporting interaction data. The executable computer software code is not merely generic computer functionality, but rather is specifically configured to track specific interaction metrics comprising views, clicks, and shares, report these metrics back to a designated system, and perform this reporting in real-time. The claim now details how this monitoring code operates, addressing any concern that the limitation was recited at a high level of generality.
The specification supports that the formatting of the improvement score generates a formatted social media post and includes encoding the social media post with metadata that associates the formatted social media post with the sender of the medical questionnaire. See e.g., As-Filed Specification, paragraph [00012]. The amended claim further specifies the technical mechanism by which this association enables real-time interaction tracking.
Claim 1 as amended also recites “encoding the social media post with secure access instructions that are specific to the social media post and comprise at least one of: login credentials, security certificates, and permissions.” This provides a technical solution for access control that is specifically applied to social media posts containing medical improvement data. The specification supports encoding the social media post with data and/or instructions such as “login information, security certificates, permissions, etc.” for accessing and/or posting to a private social media account of an entity and/or individual. As-Filed Specification, paragraph [00012].
Additionally, claim 1 as amended recites “generating a static image file that includes the improvement score and is de-identified to remove personally identifying information prior to posting.” This effects a transformation of sensitive health data into a form suitable for public posting, addressing a concrete technical problem of privacy-preserving sharing of medical improvement information on social media platforms.
The specification further supports encoding the social media post with a hyperlink linking the formatted social media post to a uniform resource locator (URL) associated with the sender of the medical questionnaire. As-Filed Specification, paragraph [00012]. These features, combined with the amended real-time tracking functionality, demonstrate a specific technical implementation rather than a high-level abstract concept.
With respect to Step 2B, even if, for the sake of argument, the claims were found to be directed to an abstract idea, claim 1 as amended recites significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. The combination of encoding with executable computer software code configured to track and report specific interaction metrics in real-time, encoding with secure access instructions comprising login credentials, security certificates, and permissions that are required to access the improvement score content, encoding with a hyperlink to a URL associated with the sender, and generating a de-identified static image file represents an unconventional ordered combination of steps that provides a specific technical improvement that addresses, for example, the concrete technical problem of privacy-preserving sharing of medical improvement information on social media platforms.
Moreover, the real-time tracking and reporting of specific interaction metrics back to the sender's system is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. This functionality requires specific technical implementation to embed executable code within social media post metadata that can capture and transmit interaction data as it occurs. The amended claim now specifies the particular metrics being tracked and the real-time nature of the reporting, which goes beyond generic monitoring functionality.
The Examiner's characterization of the additional elements as merely receiving or transmitting data over a network fails to account for the specific technical implementation recited in claim 1 as amended, which requires executable code embedded within metadata to track defined metrics and report them in real-time to a specific destination system. Embedding executable code in a social media post for monitoring purposes, as recited in claim 1 as amended, constitutes a specific technical implementation rather than a generic function, particularly when combined with the specific metrics tracked and the real-time reporting requirement and the remainder of the features of claim 1, when considered as a whole. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claim 1 amounts to "significantly more" than an abstract idea under Step 2B.
Additionally, claim 17 recites “receiving, by the processor, an indication that the patient has scheduled a medical treatment prior to provision of the medical questionnaire to the patient via the first graphic user interface, wherein provision of the medical questionnaire to the patient is responsive to receiving the indication that the patient has scheduled the treatment.” This establishes a specific triggering mechanism that ties the method to a particular workflow, representing a meaningful limitation on how the method is performed in addition to the technical features of claim 1.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The tracking and reporting of interaction metrics comprising views, clicks, and shares of the social media post back to a system of the sender of the medical questionnaire in real-time, thereby enabling monitoring of interactions by the sender, is a recitation of an improvement to the abstract idea itself. It does not provide any improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any other technology; rather, it is utilizing a computer in its ordinary capacity of receiving and sending information, and executing software code.
The steps of formatting of the improvement score, generating a formatted social media post, and encoding the social media post with metadata that associates the formatted social media post with the sender of the medical questionnaire, as well as “encoding the social media post with secure access instructions that are specific to the social media post and comprise at least one of: login credentials, security certificates, and permissions,” also do not provide any improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any other technology, and also utilize the computer in its ordinary capacity. Using login credentials, security certificates, and permissions are ordinary ways of providing secure access, regardless of the data they’re applied to or the online environment they are implemented in, such as a social media platform.
The transformation of sensitive health data into a form suitable for public posting is a recitation of an improvement to the abstract idea itself. De-identifying data to remove PII prior to posting is part of the abstract idea, and does not provide a technical improvement to the computer or any other technology.
Encoding data with a hyperlink to a URL also does not provide any improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and is utilizing a computer in its ordinary capacity.
Further, the specification does not provide any details of how the claimed invention provides any improvement to the functioning of computer technology.
The steps of the claim recite a computer executing code, and receiving and sending information; the computer is used as a tool to implement the abstract idea in a conventional manner. The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 17, the steps of receiving an indication that the patient has scheduled a medical treatment prior to provision of the medical questionnaire to the patient, wherein provision of the medical questionnaire to the patient is responsive to receiving the indication that the patient has scheduled the treatment, are all part of the abstract idea itself. The processor and the graphic user interface are used in a generic manner, to send, receive, and display information, as mere tools to implement the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARMA EL-CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3404. The examiner can normally be reached T-Sa 10am-6pm ET.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)270-1833. 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.
/KARMA A EL-CHANTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights